Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 17th February.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need to call "Object". When there is an opposing Motion on the Order Paper.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Mr. Speaker: Order. When there is a Motion on the Order Paper, the calling of "Object" is otiose.

FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

HUNTINGDON AND PETERBOROUGH COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

LEICESTER COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON WATER BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 11th February.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

YORKSHIRE DERWENT WATER BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 11th February.

BARRY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

HAVERING CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

PORT OF TYNE BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

TOR BAY HARBOUR BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

TORBAY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

WEST HERTFORDSHIRE MAIN DRAINAGE BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Council House Building

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further steps he intends to take in regard to those local authorities who are not building sufficient council dwellings.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further steps he now proposes to take regarding those local authorities which are not building the required number of council dwellings.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and I are at present holding discussions with a number of priority housing authorities whose programmes have slowed down. We are considering action to overcome, the difficulties which visits, and other indications, have revealed but I have no statement to make at present. I hope that even now these authorities will reverse their decisions to cut back their programmes in view of the pressing need for more homes in their areas.

Mr. Winnick: Can my right hon. Friend now say whether the Government intend to make any announcement about a house building agency along the lines recommended by a Select Committee, which we on this side of the House would welcome? Will he also say whether the London boroughs and the G.L.C. are being told that there can be no justification for any reduction in council house building?

Mr. Greenwood: Wherever necessary, we make the point which my hon. Friend make towards the end of his rather lengthy supplementary question. As for a house building agency, I appreciate his interest and it could well be a fruitful method of dealing with these matters. However, it would not produce any immediate result, nor would it make an immediate contribution to the present difficulties.

Mr. Allaun: Does not my right hon. Friend already possess such powers to require building under the little-known Section 91 of the 1957 Housing Act? Will he use those powers?

Mr. Greenwood: As my hon. Friend suggests, I have those powers under Section 91. However, it is a lengthy procedure. It means, for example, a public inquiry. Again, I do not think that the adoption of this method would make an immediate contribution, although it is a useful weapon to have in reserve in one's locker.

Mr. Rosssi: Will the Minister look at the yardstick costing procedure within his Department to see whether this can be expedited?

Mr. Greenwood: We look at it constantly. We have had a number of discussions with local authorities. I am not aware of any immediate difficulties arising from it. I think that most difficulties have been ironed out. If the hon. Gentleman has any cases, I will look at them.

High-rise Flats (Strengthening)

Mr. Christopher Ward: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government upon what general criteria he decided to make grants of 40 per cent. to local authorities to assist in strengthening tall flats as a result of the accident at Ronan Point, Canning Town; and whether he will now reconsider his decision.

Mr. Silvester: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further consideration he has now given to raising the percentage grant that he is providing towards the strengthening of tower blocks following the collapse of Ronan Point.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why, on 21st October, 1969, he informed the hon. Member for West Ham, North that he would soon be able to make an announcement concerning discussions relative to the 40 per cent. grant towards the costs involved to local authorities in strengthening tower blocks resultant upon the Ronan Point disaster; why by 1st January, 1970, no such state-

ment had been made; and when he now expects to make his statement.

Mr. Greenwood: I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Members to the statement which I made on 19th January in reply to the Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). I was impressed by the cost evidence produced by the local authorities that a case could be made for a higher contribution towards the costs of measures taken on my recommendation, and I have announced an increase from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. in the rate of grant.—[Vol. 794, c. 57–8.]

Mr. Ward: Does the Minister realise that, welcome though this increase is, the local housing authorities are having to spend millions of pounds on strengthening blocks, thus making it more difficult for them to provide the new homes which are so desperately needed? Will he look at the matter again as a national emergency, which it surely is?

Mr. Greenwood: We shall be having further discussions with the local authority associations on this subject, but I can hold out no hope of increasing the 50 per cent. That very much represents the division of responsibility which the tribunal said existed between central Government, local government, the professions and the industry.

Mr. Silvester: Is not the Minister's obstinacy in not meeting the full cost in direct contradiction of what he was urging previously, namely, that the local authorities, particularly in the sorely pressed areas, should get on with a higher housing programme? The Minister is burdening them unnecessarily.

Mr. Greenwood: We are awaiting the results of some appraisals that local authorities are still undertaking.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister tell us what facts and figures were available in January this year that were not readily available to him 20 months go? Is it right to saddle the poorer boroughs with a total debt of £12½ million? Will my right hon. Friend do something about it?

Mr. Greenwood: The new fact which emerged was that the generous subsidy that the Government are paying to local authorities for new house building has, over that period, gone up from about 40


to nearer 50 per cent. It therefore seemed fair to reallocate the grant for Ronan Point in the same ratio. My hon. Friend is wrong to assume that it is only poor local authorities that are affected in this way. A number of more prosperous boroughs are affected. We have discussed with local authorities how the grant shall be made available between them.

Mr. Graham Page: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, relative to work being carried out, when the grant will be paid? Will it be before, after or during the work?

Mr. Greenwood: The grant will be made available as expenses are incurred by local authorities on the provisional basis that they do not exceed the 50 per cent.

Mr. Conlan: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that some local authorities have a far greater burden than other authorities? Therefore, will he apply a differential grant scheme to assist those authorities with the greatest burdens?

Mr. Greenwood: We have discussed this with the local authorities, but their reaction has not been enthusiastic. However, I propose to discuss further with them the possibility of helping a number of very small local authorities—it would be wrong to identify them now—where the burden is disproportionately heavy.

New Houses (Prices)

Mr. Christopher Ward: asked the Minister of Housing and local Government what is the price of an average new house in Great Britain; and what is the average price in the south-east of England.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The average price of a new 3-bedroom semidetached house sold in England and Wales in 1968 was £3,960 and in the south-east region £5,110. Reliable figures for 1969 are not yet available.

Mr. Ward: Does the Minister appreciate that it is virtually impossible for young couples on average earnings or below to buy houses at these figures with the mortgage rate at its present level?

What is the Government's policy to deal with the matter?

Mr. Freeson: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the disparity between prices in other parts of the country and the South-East. This is nothing new. It has been going on for many years. The pressure of population in the South-East, being greater than elsewhere, produces a reaction on land and property prices.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the high price of construction in the South-East could be affected by the scandalously high cost per unit of accommodation of the Greater London Council's Thamesmead Development in my constituency where units of accommodation are reaching an average of £10,000 per unit? This is a scandal.

Mr. Freeson: I should need notice on the detailed aspects of that question. In public sector housing there is a good deal of direct Government assistance when the properties are completed—much more than under previous Administrations. I take it that the original Question referred to owner-occupied dwellings on the market.

Housing Construction (Finance)

Mr. Rossi: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what recent representations he has received from the Federation of Registered House Builders regarding the difficulties of obtaining bank loans to finance housing construction; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Freeson: Members of the Federation of Registered House Builders have raised this question with my right hon. Friend and with Ministry officials on a number of occasions. He has explained that, within the overriding limits on lending, the banks have complete discretion over how they treat the construction industry, as it neither enjoys special priority nor is subject to special restriction.

Mr. Rossi: Is the hon. Gentleman genuinely concerned to see more houses built in this country? Does he realise that until he gives priority credit facilities to builders he will not see this done?

Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend is not responsible for decisions over priorities concerning credit facilities. The


general question has been raised on a number of occasions in the past and it has been answered in terms of the general economic position.
I think that the general query is superfluous. My right hon. Friend and I have been concerned with getting more houses built in this country for many years, not excluding the hon. Gentleman's district.

Mr. John Fraser: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Treasury or the banks need a kick in the pants because some builders are finding real difficulty in getting advances? I do not blame the Government, but the banks do not seem to understand the urgency or their rights of priority in lending to builders.

Mr. Freeson: If my hon. Friend will give me specific information it will be helpful in further consideration of the matter. However, it is only fair to point out that at the end of November, 1969, advances to builders stood at £372 million compared with the highest quarterly figure reached in 1968 of £373 million. It appears from those figures that, although there may be difficulties, they are being somewhat exaggerated.

Council Houses (Subsidies)

Mr. Rossi: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the average subsidy on new council houses from the Government and from rates, respectively.

Mr. Freeson: On a dwelling costing £4,100 and completed in 1969–70, the basic Exchequer subsidy is £148 for 60 years. Some dwellings also qualify for high flats subsidy of up to £26 a year and expensive site subsidy of as much as £40 a year or more. The average rate subsidy cannot be estimated because it varies so sharply and depends on how far rents are pooled.

Mr. Rossi: I repeat the question that I asked the Minister of State for Housing in the debate on 16th November last at column 1194, namely, whether the figures published by the Housing Research Foundation are accurate, that the average subsidy for new council dwellings outside London is £200 per annum and within London £400 per annum? In view of those figures, does the Minister agree that those well able to afford a fair rent should be made to do so?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is making the House suffer from undue repetition, because the answer was given then and it has been given again today. The figure stands at the level that I have already quoted: £148 for 60 years plus these exceptional subsidies to which I also referred on high buildings and on high site costs. The hon. Gentleman overlooks one important factor which I touched on at the end of my original reply, namely, the effect that rent pooling has on properties. It is a gross exaggeration when people constantly say that the majority of council house dwellers in this country are being subsidised. Vast numbers are in fact helping to subsidise their fellow tenants.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Answers, too, are getting lengthy.

Mr. Heffer: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the proposals of the Opposition for the withdrawal or reduction of housing subsidies were put into effect, it would means an immediate increase in rents to a very high level for council house dwellers throughout the country?

Mr. Freeson: It is not just a question of whether the proposals would increase rents. I regret to say that in some parts of the country there are indications that people are being pressurised out of accepting alternative accommodation in slum clearance schemes because they can no longer, under new rent structures, afford the rents being proposed.

House Building (Private Sector)

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what evidence he has received from the Federation of Registered House Builders regarding the expected state of housebuilding activity in the private sector in 1970; and what action he proposes to take in the light of it.

Mr. Greenwood: I have studied the annual report for 1969 of the Federation of Registered House Builders which clearly indicates the difficulties faced by housebuilders at present but which also sounds a note of guarded optimism in the section entitled "Future Prospects".
I refer the hon. Member to my speech in the debate on 29th January.

Mr. Murton: But would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the building trade is going through as severe a recession as it has ever faced since the 'thirties, and that it is being crippled by rising costs? Does he still endorse the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in 1964 that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No quotations in a supplementary question.

Mr. Greenwood: I think that the hon. Member is taking rather too gloomy a view of the future. We had a long discussion on this last week; perhaps he would be kind enough to refer to the points which I made then.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Particularly in view of the country's improved financial position, will my right hon. Friend press the Chancellor to permit the banks to lend to building firms, not just in the neutral position but in the top priority, along with exports and agriculture?

Mr. Greenwood: I am happy to leave it to my right hon. Friend to decide when is the right time in the country's economic progress to take a decision of that kind.

New Houses

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses have been completed in the public and private sectors in the first nine months of each of the past five years.

Mr. Greenwood: I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Murton: Is it not a fact that precisely four additional houses only were completed in the last year, as compared to 1964 in total?

Mr. Greenwood: I am not sure I understand—

Mr. Murton: Four additional houses in total in 1969 as compared with the same nine months in 1964.

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Member had better study the figures which I am circulating. I hope that he will welcome the fact that the figures last year were higher than in all but the last of the Opposition years in office and that, in

1963, the figure was only 205,700, as against 266,900 in the first nine months of 1969.

Following are the figures:


Completions
(First Nine months)
Great Britain
(Thousands)


Year
Public
Private
Total


1965
…
119·3
157·8
277·1


1966
…
127·7
152·4
280·1


1967
…
146·4
142·0
288·4


1968
…
137·1
163·8
300·9


1969
…
130·7
136·2
266·9

Housing Revenue Accounts (Report)

Mr. Graham Page: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now state the Government's policy on the Report of the Working Party on Housing Revenue Accounts.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell): I have nothing to add to the answer to a question by the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) on 16th December.—[Vol. 793, c. 1124.]

Mr. Page: Did not this Committee report nine or ten months ago? Is no policy coming from the Government as a result?

Mr. Howell: This Committee was looking into very detailed technical questions. Its object was to elucidate and to identify the technical problems of housing revenue accounts. It was circulated with the agreement of the local authority associations, without commitment on either side, which is what they wished to have, but the long-term review of housing finance which has been undertaken will take into account what the Committee told us.

Mr. Mapp: Has the working party considered in detail the difficulty of unfit houses in those towns with a heavy backlog? If so, has my hon. Friend anything in mind so that those old towns could have some particular treatment in the near future?

Mr. Howell: That was not one of the terms of reference of the Committee, but certainly the question of the financial strain of slum clearance is part of the long-term review of housing finance which we are undertaking.

Land (Private House Building)

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the availability of land for private housing in the outer Metropolitan area.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Government wish to see enough land released in the outer metropolitan area to sustain a programme of 35,000 houses a year for seven years commencing 1968. To achieve this programme about 11,000 more acres are needed.
So far local planning authorities have promised to release about 6,000 acres but hope that more will become available in the course of reviewing their development plans. We shall continue to keep this matter under active consideration.

Mr. Costain: Does the hon. Member appreciate that the difference of 25 per cent. in the cost of houses in the London area as compared with the rest of the country is largely due to the shortage and high cost of land? Does he think that the new proposals will realise enough land to get the prices back to normal?

Mr. Howell: We very much hope that more land will be released. It would help if the hon. Gentleman could persuade his hon. Friends that any agency, particularly the Land Commission, which is designed to create more land, should have support and not be abused as it is at present.

Council Tenants (Home Ownership)

Mr. Eyre: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress he has made with his studies of proposals made to him regarding the introduction of legislation to allow local authorities to pay legal expenses to council tenants wishing to move into home ownership in the private sector.

Mr. Freeson: If a council tenant moves out into a house of his own the local authority have power to repay his removal expenses, but not his legal costs. After consultation with local authority and other interests, I am still not convinced it is desirable to amend the law in this respect.

Mr. Eyre: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a disappointing reply?

Would it not be wise to do everything possible to encourage the better-off council tenant to move on to home ownership and so make his house available to those in greater need?

Mr. Freeson: The answer to the main part of the question is that it is desirable to encourage anyone who can do so to purchase his own house; I think that this Government have taken a number of steps in that direction. On the main burden of the question, the point at this stage is to try to persuade local authorities to use what powers they already have. We have been in discussion with the local authority associations, which have undertaken to remind their member authorities of their existing powers, which are not fully used.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not the case that the loss to the Treasury per house-owner is £47 10s. on average, whereas the loss per council house, on the subsidy, is about £30, and that, therefore, if council house tenants transferred in any great and sudden degree to house purchase, the loss to the Inland Revenue would be disastrous?

Mr. Freeson: I take my hon. Friend's point, but it is as well to remember that, as more house building proceeds, the average subsidy per council house tenant from the Exchequer on his property will rise greatly to come into line with the present degree of subsidy to owner-occupiers.

Council Houses (Interest Rates)

Mr. Gurden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce legislation to enable him to assist local authorities to avoid some part of the increases in rents on municipal houses made necessary by increased interest rates.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, already does this.

Mr. Gurden: Is this the Minister's reward to the City of Birmingham for building 30,000 houses in the last four years, that it has to suffer these unprecedentedly high interest rates? Does he expect the general ratepayer to pay the bill, or should the municipal tenants have a rise in rent?

Mr. Howell: The first part of that question is a ludicrous proposition, since interest charges affect both the efficient and inefficient local authorities. The question of what goes into the housing management account, and should therefore be properly borne by municipal tenants as distinct from ratepayers, is a matter for local council procedure and local electoral considerations.

Prefabricated Houses

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will set up a departmental committee to examine the contribution which factory-built prefabricated homes can make to reducing the housing shortage; and if he will consult other Ministers concerned, with a view to the provision of grants for further research aimed at developing high-class prefabricated homes suitable for factory mass production.

Mr. Freeson: The contribution factory-built prefabricated homes can make to meeting housing need is well known and my right hon. Friend has recently urged local authorities to consider the advantages which can flow from their use. Moreover a number of industrialised systems are now well established. Research by the Department is therefore being concentrated on components rather than on new systems, in view of the advantages offered by greater standardisation of these components.

Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend not agree that this sector is still the Cinderella of the housebuilding programme, that the level of research is still far too low, and that, as a result, the nature of the prefabricated houses produced is often abysmal? Would he not accept that, if we are to solve the housing problem in the foreseeable future, prefabricated housing must make a major contribution and that to achieve this there must be more centralisation of research?

Mr. Freeson: There is a good deal of continuing research in this field, and we have no intention of running down this level. I and my right hon. Friend accept that there is so far insufficient use of system building in this country and that there is great scope here for enlarging

the housing drive. I do not accept that, in this field, one finds particularly worse designs and construction than in others. On the contrary, in this field there has been and continues to be a great improvement.

Mr. Sharples: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one can have an expansion in industrialised building only where there is an expanding housebuilding programme, and that that condition does not exist at present?

Mr. Freeson: The prospects of enlarging the housebuilding drive are closely tied to using better methods and introducing greater productivity techniques into the industry which produces the houses. I should have thought that that was obvious.

Local Authority Housebuilding (Public Expenditure)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how much public expenditure was incurred on local authority housebuilding in England in 1969; how this figure compares with 1964; and how much of this extra expenditure was due to 1969 standards being superior to those of 1964.

Mr. Freeson: The figures requested for 1969 are not yet available.
In the financial year 1968–69, local authority capital expenditure in housing in England and Wales is estimated at about £665 million, compared with £430 million in 1964–65; an increase in total expenditure of about 54 per cent. Of this, it is estimated that the increase in cost due to improvement in standards between 1964 and 1968 was about 8 per cent.

Mr. Boyden: Although the figures are not available, would they not be likely to show that although 1969 was a disappointing year, the total national housing achievement under Labour has been infinitely superior to that of any year under the Tories?

Mr. Freeson: I believe that my hon. Friend has made a very fair factual point—[Interruption.]—which is not sufficiently brought out in housing debates. Under the Tories there was a high target, by their standards of achievement—the target was 300,000 or more—but that was at the expense of standards, as anybody


who was in local government at that time will recall. Under Labour, on the other hand, the increase in the production of houses has been married with increasing quality.

Mr. Emery: As the Minister knows, most people will not accept that statement. Can he say how much of this increase in price has been due to S.E.T., the increase in S.E.T., the extra charges which the Government have put on the industry by import surcharges and by the higher cost of money?

Mr. Freeson: I should need notice of those questions to give a precise answer. Broadly speaking, however, the answer is "About 3½ per cent.". I would not accept the hon. Gentleman's rejection of the fact which I put. I happened to be concerned with housing in local government at the time of the famous 300,000 target—

Mr. Emery: So was I.

Mr. Freeson: —and I recall the strong pressure that was put on local authorities to reduce their standards.

Derelict Sites (Bishop Auckland)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many derelict sites were planted or reclaimed in the Bishop Auckland constituency during 1968 and 1969; and at what cost.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): A site was reclaimed with grant aid in 1968 and another in 1969, costing £4,023 and £8,441 respectively. Approvals allowing work to start have been given for three other sites at a total estimated cost of £20,000. Two further schemes have received outline approval.

Mr. Boyden: While that answer is satisfactory as far as it goes, may I press my hon. Friend to do everything possible in his Department to accelerate this process, especially in villages, where derelict land has a very bad effect on the general house improvement programme?

Mr. Skeffington: I assure my hon. Friend that we are anxious to help. He will be pleased to know that more money than ever before has been allocated for this purpose in nearly all the areas of

the North-East, where the grant is 85 per cent. About 50 more acres have been cleared, without grant. My Department will be glad to help in any way it can.

Housing Associations and Societies (Report)

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to receive the Report of the Cohen Committee on Housing Associations and Societies.

Mr. Greenwood: I hope during the course of this year.

Mr. Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything possible to speed up the publication of this report, which is eagerly awaited by the whole of the voluntary housing movement?

Mr. Greenwood: Certainly. This is, however, an extremely complex problem and the Committee is having to review the whole structure and financing of the voluntary housing movement. I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety and I know that Sir Karl Cohen shares it, too.

Housing Completions

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has now made of the probable number of housing completions in 1970.

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the housebuilding programme for 1970.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will estimate the number of starts and completions, respectively of new homes in 1970; and if he will take steps to improve the economic prospects of small-and medium-sized building firms.

Mr. Greenwood: As recent results have shown, the private sector in particular is very responsive to changes in economic conditions. Performance in 1970 will be affected by the speed with which housebuilding responds to the stimulus of an improving economy and the measures which the Government have taken. But small and medium size firms


should benefit from improving conditions and from the growth in the work on improvement of older property which our new grant scheme will encourage.

Mr. Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman now give an estimate?

Mr. Greenwood: I said in the House last week that I expect the outcome to be very much the same as 1969. It is much too early to be firm because of the imponderables, to which the private house builders have properly drawn my attention.

Mr. Farr: What effect has the right hon. Gentleman assessed the massive increase in building workers' wages—part of which came into effect at the beginning of this month and which will total 26 per cent. in a year—will have on his estimate?

Mr. Greenwood: That will not affect the total number of houses produced this year, which is largely dependent on the number in the pipeline and under construction at the end of last year. This was almost exactly the same as the number at the end of 1964, which hon. Gentlemen opposite have always held out as a sign of the healthy situation of the housing position under the Conservatives.

Mr. Frank Allaun: What emergency measures does my right hon. Friend intend to take? For example, will he restore the full £195 million per annum loans to local authorities to lend to people who cannot get building society mortgages?

Mr. Greenwood: I welcome my hon. Friend's interest in this problem. One of the difficulties about home loans this year has, of course, been the fact that a number of local authorities have not been able to get sufficient takers of loans to enable them to advance the full quota available to them. I suggest that we had better leave the figure at £100 million for the next financial year and see how things develop during the year. We have improved the Option Mortgage Scheme and the Government's Save-as-you-Earn Scheme has been welcomed by building societies and is making a substantial contribution.

Mr. John Hall: How many prefabricated houses are likely to be erected by local authorities in 1970?

Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. Gentleman tables a Question, I will gladly give him the answer.

Mr. Roebuck: Would the estimate for 1970 be higher if the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) did not go round the country advising Conservative-controlled councils to build fewer houses? Would my right hon. Friend undertake, if Conservative-controlled councils in the Greater London area continue, for reasons of party political spite, to be deaf to the cries of the homeless and badly housed, not to rule out the possibility of establishing a regional housing corporation to go into the boroughs and house the homeless?

Mr. Greenwood: I would not rule out anything that my hon. Friend suggests. I very much hope that, in their increasing propaganda, hon. Gentlemen opposite will draw attention to the rather bizarre views on housing of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING

Sunderland and Wearside (Economic Development)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning what action he is taking to promote the economic development of Sunderland.

Mr. Bagier: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning what steps he is taking to stimulate further the economic development of Wearside.

The Minister of State (Mr. T. W. Urwin): My hon. Friend will be aware of the substantial encouragement to industrial development in Sunderland which is already provided by the Government's measures of economic and financial assistance to the development areas and of the development of road communications and other environmental improvements in recent years on Wearside.

Mr. Willey: While I assure my hon. Friend that we recognise that the North-East Coast has received more by way


of development aid under Labour than under the Tories, may I ask him to recognise that the problem at present is to direct aid specifically to areas of particular difficulty, such as Sunderland? In considering this, will he consider the provision of employment through public enterprise in factories which are publicly financed?

Mr. Urwin: I assure my right hon. Friend that I share his concern at the present situation in Sunderland. My hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Technology is doing everything possible to draw to the attention of suitable firms the advantage of developing on Wearside. We are keeping close watch on the position and we have the prospects of the area very much in mind.
To answer my right hon. Friend's supplementary question about public enterprises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this subject for 19th February, I think that it would be wrong of me to anticipate what the Answer might be.

Mr. Bagier: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most serious problems confronting Sunderland is the number of males unemployed? Is he, therefore, aware of the type of industry that we need in the region to solve this problem? Is he further aware that many school leavers are unable to find employment for a very long time?

Mr. Urwin: I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of all these factors, and that the procuring Ministry, the Ministry of Technology, is doing everything possible to ensure that the preponderance of jobs coming into the region is in respect of male employment.

Dame Irene Ward: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Sunderland gives everybody in the North-East great cause for anxiety, but in answering the Question the Minister of State has gone backwards. What the questioner wanted answered is what is to be done in the very near future, because Sunderland has a higher rate of unemployment than many other parts of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long. Sit down."]

Dame Irene Ward: No, I will stand up.

Mr. Urwin: While I understand the concern of the hon. Lady, I suggest that it is a great pity that her hon. and right hon. Friends, some of whom have made public and frank admissions of failure to understand and act on the problems of the North-East, including Sunderland, did not take action. Then the situation would have been far better than it is at present. It is a pity that they did not take action in the late 'fifties and early 'sixties.

Sunderland (Employment Opportunities)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning whether he will make a statement on the discussions between the Northern Economic Planning Council and the Sunderland Borough Council about the provision of opportunities for employment in Sunderland.

Mr. Urwin: The planning council is currently awaiting the views of the county borough council on the suggestion made in the planning council's letter of 10th December, 1969, for joint action to encourage an increase in the supply of skilled labour in Sunderland as an additional attraction to new industry.

Mr. Willey: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he encourage those taking part in these discussions to expand them to a working party by including industrialists, employers and trade unionists?

Mr. Urwin: I regard that as a valuable suggestion, but at the moment the planning council is awaiting a reply from the county borough council from the standpoint of the proposition of sponsoring a special exhibition in Sunderland to stimulate interest in training within industry itself and at Government training centres. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend.

Local Government Reform (White Paper)

Mr. Henig: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning when he now expects to announce a date for the coming into force of the proposed reform of local government.

Mr. Tinn: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional


Planning when he expects to publish his White Paper on the Reorganisation of Local Government; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning when he now proposes to publish the White Paper on the implementation of the Redcliffe-Maud Report.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning what is his present estimate of the time-table for the implementation of local government reform.

The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I shall present the White Paper tomorrow, and with the permission of the House, will make a statement. The White Paper will include the Government's estimate of the timetable likely to be required for local government reform.

Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is becoming increasingly clear to many citizens that the present structure of local authorities is simply incapable of performing many of the functions assigned to local government? Is he aware, for example, that in North-East Lancashire the position is quite unsatisfactory? Will he make sure that reform of local government comes into force absolutely as soon as possible?

Mr. Crosland: I am aware that there is a large volume of opinion supporting the points my hon. Friend has made. Certainly all of us on this side of the House and, I hope, hon. Members opposite, want to see reform carried through as soon as practicable.

Whitehall (Redevelopment)

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if he will make a statement about the deputation he received from representatives of the Victorian Society, the Georgian Group, the hon. Members for Southend, West, and Barking and others about the Government's proposed redevelopment of Whitehall; and if it is now proposed to hold a public inquiry into the scheme which involves the demolition of Richmond Terrace and Scotland Yard.

Mr. Crosland: I am considering the views expressed by the deputation, and a statement will be made shortly.

Mr. Channon: Would the Secretary of State agree that there has been a great deal of public concern about this? Is it not time that the Government came forward with a statement, which is awaited with considerable anxiety?

Mr. Crosland: I am certainly aware that there has been public concern. I hope that the hon. Member, who was kind enough to attend with the deputation, will agree that it had a very sympathetic reception from the Government. Suppose that we were to decide on an inquiry, there would still be quite complex matters to be decided as to its form, its timing and its scope.

Mr. Driberg: In thanking my right hon. Friend for the sympathetic reception he gave to the deputation, may I ask if he is fully aware of the need both for speed in going ahead with the parliamentary extension, but also for great care in the planning of the Government precinct as a whole? For the latter purpose, is not a full-scale planning commission the best thing?

Mr. Crosland: I am aware of the points my hon. Friend has put, but the notion of a planning inquiry commission, which has been put to me by the amenity bodies, raises in practice a number of very considerable difficulties.

Mr. John Smith: If there is to be an inquiry, could it please be broad enough to consider whether the State should any longer be exempted from its own general planning legislation and whether the office work of Government needs to be done in central London at all?

Mr. Crosland: The second part of the question was of course considered exhaustively in the original Martin Buchanan Plan. On the other part, it is not correct, although it is frequently stated, that the Government are exempt from normal planning requirements. In this case the Government received planning permission from Westminster City Council.

Air Pollution (Effect on Weather)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and


Regional Planning what research is being undertaken or sponsored by his Department into the effect of air pollution on the weather, both over the British Isles and the world as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: A great deal of research is being done in this and other countries, to help us to understand the effects of air pollution on weather and climate. In this country, the Meteorological Office takes the lead, and has in hand a considerable programme of research with which I am in close touch.

Mr. Hall: Is the Minister aware that research in the United States seems to indicate that over the world as a whole nearly 1,000 million tons of man-made pollutants are discharged into the air every year and this is having marked effects on the climate, one of which is to produce more rain? As we have enough rain in this country already, should he not give some priority to this research?

Mr. Crosland: I should have thought the winter sunshine pouring through the windows of this Chamber this afternoon was a remarkable tribute to the efforts of this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Barnes: asked the Prime Minister what opportunities he expects to have during the first half of 1970 to discuss Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community with individual heads of Government of the European Economic Community countries.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing at present to add to my reply to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) and other hon. Members on 20th January.—[Vol. 794, c. 250–3.]

Mr. Barnes: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it could be important for the Six in the negotiations that there should be no doubt about the kind of institutional integration which Britain favours in Europe? Could not a series of meetings help to clarify this? Secondly, can my right hon. Friend say

when the White Paper is to be published?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of that question, we have had in the last few weeks a number of distinguished visitors, Ministers from France, Luxembourg, and, as my hon. Friend will know, Herr Brandt is coming here next month. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is visiting all the capitals of the Six. In regard to the publication of the White Paper, I hope it will be available to the House next week. It has already gone for printing.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister enlighten the House a little about how negotiations are now likely to start? For instance, are we to conduct general negotiations with other people who want to go into the Common Market? If so, is he having preliminary discussions with them as to the terms on which they would go in?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know of our contacts with the Republic of Ireland, our partners in the Anglo-Irish Treaty, and of course other applicants from E.F.T.A. as to how the negotiations will be undertaken. I do not think the Six have decided themselves, and obviously they must decide, who goes in to bat on their side. However they regulate their side, we shall be negotiating ourselves with them and not as part of a general team of players.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Dr. Luns—with whom Herr Strauss agrees—has stated publicly that unless Britain gives a firm commitment to join a federal Europe he is not interested in our joining the Common Market? In view of the assurances which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 16th February this year, and to me on 10th June last year, that Great Britain has no intention of joining a federal Europe, has my right hon. Friend anything further to state?

The Prime Minister: There is no better friend of the enlargement of the Community in Europe than Dr. Luns and he knows, as we know, that there is nothing of a federal character in the Treaty of Rome or the treaties governing the other communities, so the question simply does not arise. The political implications that


we accept, and have made clear that we accept, are those contained in the Treaty of Rome for the regulation of the Community itself.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his visit to the United States of America.

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Prime Minister what talks he has had with President Nixon concerning international agreement on the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons; and if, in the light of the talks, he will seek further international agreement on a ban on the use of lachrymatory gas.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to the United States of America and his talks with President Nixon.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether, during his visit to the United States of America, he has ascertained the policy of President Nixon on the retention of United States forces in Europe.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose a European Security Conference between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw Pact powers when he meets the United States President.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the question of a European nuclear force was dealt with in his recent consultations with President Nixon.

The Prime Minister: I would refer to the report on my visit and my discussions with President Nixon which I gave the House last Thursday.
On the particular question of international agreement on the use of chemical and biological weapons, this was not mentioned in our discussions.—[Vol. 794. c. 1713–19.]

Mr. Marten: In the Prime Minister's speech in New York he is reported as saying that all over the industrial world

there is an increasing degree of industrial militancy on an international scale. Was he implying thereby that there was some international plan to disrupt the economies of the West—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and if so, could the House be told about it, because it would be a very serious thing for this country?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I was not implying that. I was saying that the phenomenon of strikes and wage demands common to all industrial countries has been a great deal worse in America than in this country. I would point out to right hon. and hon. Members opposite who put forward their own proposals for dealing with these by their own form of statutory control the failure of some of these controls in the United States, as shown by the fact that per thousand workers they have had four times as many man-days lost over the past 10 years as we have had, and a strike designed to be settled by the very type of statutory control envisaged by hon. Members opposite has now been going on with the General Electric Company for 12 weeks, involving the loss of more man-days in one strike than Britain had in the whole of 1969.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Pardoe.

Mr. Pardoe: Question Q3—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on supplementary questions now. I will give the hon. Gentleman time to consider his supplementary.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since on arrival in Washington the Prime Minister imaginatively redefined the Anglo-American relationship in the terms of a common concern for the problems of the environment, what plans has he to contribute towards their solution, apart from his failure to ensure an adequate supply of smokeless fuel at home?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's well-known concern for smokeless fuel will, I think, be the subject of a debate later today. As to the rest of his question, I would refer him to the statement which I made in the House just before Christmas in relation to the appointment of the new pollution unit, the Royal Commission on Pollution and other action taken by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Pardoe: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Q3 has been answered with Question Q2. The hon. Gentleman can put a supplementary question later.

Mr. Shinwell: I am aware that my right hon. Friend dealt with the content of Question Q12 when he made a previous statement, so I will not ask him about that. But I should like to ask whether in his conversation with President Nixon any reference was made, in view of the President's present association with the Kremlin on certain matters, to the action of the Soviet Union in relation to minorities in that country, and also the attitude of the Polish Government towards minorities.

The Prime Minister: This was not discussed. As my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members know, I have repeatedly taken up the question of certain minorities in the Soviet Union, when I have been talking direct to Mr. Kosygin, and earlier to Mr. Krushchev.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the suggestion that other European countries have perhaps been more enthusiastic for a European security conference than Great Britain and the United States. Will he say whether he had any discussions on this point with the President of the United States, and whether either of them has become a little more enthusiastic for the European conference, as has been suggested was the case?

The Prime Minister: We discussed this very fully. Her Majesty's Government's view is that, as I said in the communiqué at the end of Mr. Kosygin's visit in 1967, a conference would be useful if it is well prepared and covers all relevant questions affecting European security. It should not be a matter just for shouting slogans at one another. All the slogans are fairly familiar. It should deal with real questions. We do not feel that the present proposed agenda deals adequately with these matters. I stressed in Washington, as I have in this House, the need for us to make a positive response and not to be on the defensive about it, but to say that we will welcome this security conference provided it has an agenda dealing with all relevant aspects of European security.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Pardoe.

Mr. Pardoe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that you called me to ask a supplementary question on Question Q.3, but because of the noise I was unable to ask it.

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Gentleman twice. He can ask a supplementary question now.

Mr. Pardoe: Although he apparently did not discuss this on his visit to Washington, will the Prime Minister reaffirm the statement of the British Government of 1930 that in their view lachrymatory gases are included in the prohibition of poisonous gases?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to a Written Question on this subject yesterday, dealing with the matter in relation to 1930 and the question of C.S. smoke, which has been newly discovered or invented—whatever is the right phrase—since 1930.

Mr. J. T. Price: In view of what my right hon. Friend said about industrial disputes in the United States and elsewhere, including our own country, and the wish of most of us to see a greater measure of industrial sanity at home and abroad for the sake of world progress, would not it be a good idea, as a contribution to this desirable objective, that the Conservative Party should also have a cooling-off period?

The Prime Minister: I do not—thank God—have to reply for the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Blaker.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) must sit down.

Mr. Blaker: The Prime Minister will recall telling the House last Thursday, in answer to a Question from me, that all that was necessary by way of renegotiating the Nassau Agreement had been done between him and President Johnson in December, 1964. How does he explain that remark in view of the fact that on 3rd March, 1966, and other occasions after December, 1964, he was


stating that it was still his policy to renegotiate the agreement in the future?

The Prime Minister: What we have done is to commit the British nuclear deterrent unequivocally to N.A.T.O. That is now understood by the Americans. Whereas there was a need to renegotiate Nassau as long as the odd proposal for a mixed-manned fleet was going, the mixed-manned fleet has been finally torpedoed by us.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: rose—

Mr. Heath: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Heath.

Hon. Members: We want Walter.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister said in answer to supplementary questions after his statement on Thursday directly he returned from Washington that he had not discussed the question of American force levels in Europe other than the President's statement to the middle of 1971. The President has made it plain in his recent statements to Congress that while standing by the alliances and their treaty undertakings the Americans proposed to withdraw their force levels in various countries of the world, including Europe. Is it not necessary that the matter should be settled between North America and the European countries on a quietly reasoned basis rather than that there should be withdrawals later on which cause uncertainty in Europe? In this case should not the Government now take an initiative and ensure that the question of force levels is worked out between the United States and the European countries?

The Prime Minister: The reason we did not go further into the matter beyond June, 1971, is that the President had nothing to say on this question. I think that it is known that the United States Government are reviewing all questions of force levels, including their decision to withdraw all ground combat forces in due course from the continent of Asia. The President has made that clear. But he had nothing to say on Europe beyond June, 1971, and therefore it would not have been productive to start dealing with hypothetical questions. Through

N.A.T.O. my two right hon. Friends who represent us there have been discussing force levels arising in the first instance from the Canadians' decision. We shall be happy to discuss all other matters when the United States is in a position to talk.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have learnt with great satisfaction that the President has enlightened my right hon. Friend as to the lamentable failure of the kind of trade union reform which he proposed last summer? Could he persuade the Leader of the Opposition to visit President Nixon and receive a similar enlightenment?

The Prime Minister: It was not the talks with the President that dealt with these questions but my discussion with many leading labour lawyers, trade unionists and representatives of management in New York. There was no discussion about the proposals made by Her Majesty's Government last summer dealing with the specific problem of wildcat strikers. There was a lot of discussion about the inadequacy of American law to deal with legislation to enforce the compulsory honouring of agreements entered into by both sides. The House will no doubt want to debate one day the failure of American practice on which I understand the policies of right hon. Gentlemen opposite are based.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Will the right hon. Gentleman get up from where he is now sitting and, with his hand on his heart, give his solemn word of honour—for what that is worth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that he will visit as many foreign countries as he possibly can and get as many foreign plenipotentiaries as possible to come to this country in order that he might obtain the maximum publicity before he is knocked as stiff as a mackerel by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition at the next General Election?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND)

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to agricultural tenancies in Scotland; and for purposes connected therewith.
It may seem an act of temerity to embark upon such a large task as the amendment of Scottish agricultural holdings law through the medium of a Ten-Minute Rule Bill. However, I seek to deal with only one small matter which has given rise to hardship of an extreme kind in a case which is known to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), for whose presence here I am grateful.
I have learned from my hon. Friend that the Government are at present carrying out a review of Scottish agricultural holdings legislation. It is a vast subject of considerable complexity. Unfortunately, I have not been able to obtain from him any assurance about when the review will be completed. It is for that reason that I feel obliged to bring forward this proposed Measure in the hope that the House will see fit to relieve what is a grievous hardship and a potentially burdensome situation for tenant farmers.
My hon. Friend knows that my interest in the subject was first aroused by a case in my constituency which achieved some notoriety. It involved a Mr. Brims, of Watten, in Caithness, who was dispossessed of his farm by the landlord because of his failure to carry out certain repairs which left him in breach of condition of his lease.
Under the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949, a landlord in that situation may serve an incontestable notice to quit. This is a matter of considerable importance and can give rise to great hardship, since an extremely trivial matter can be involved. It can be simply that the requirement is to carry out a repair to fencing, or perhaps to ensure that a steading is weatherproof, or some relatively slight matter. There is no requirement that the notice

be given in any particular form. It can be presented in an informal letter in which a whole lot of other matters are rolled up, and the severe consequences which may follow from a failure to carry out repairs can lead to the notice to quit being given—a situation in which the tenant has no remedy.
I am sure that the House will agree that this is inequitable. The position was similar in England until 1964, when two orders were laid before the House in pursuance of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1963, whereunder it was required that a notice to remedy a breach of a term or condition of a lease must be in a prescribed form and must specify the period within which the breach is required to be remedied, with a minimum time of six months. In addition, the tenant farmer must be given notice that failure to comply with that requirement may lead to a notice to quit being issued in the prescribed manner.
That seems to be a sensible provision, and it is somewhat anomalous that the law was not amended in Scotland at the same time. However, I recognise that the procedure for the review of agricultural holdings legislation proceeds along independent lines in Scotland.
This case has given rise to considerable concern in my constituency and throughout the North. For that reason, I have taken it up with the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. I have ascertained that the union is anxious to have the law amended and is seeking to have the Scottish law brought into line with English law. In view of that, I suggest that this is a matter of importance which can and should be dealt with quite simply and expeditiously.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Donald Dewar, Mr. William Hannan, and Mr. Archie Manuel.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND)

Bill to amend the law relating to agricultural tenancies in Scotland; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 20th March and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Speaker: I have two announcements to make. I have not selected the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and his hon. Friends:
Leave out from 'House' to end and add 'whilst conscious of the fact that the Opposition's policies on unemployment have always been, and are, disastrous to the nation, regrets that Her Majesty's Government have not reduced unemployment by pursuing expansionist policies and by taking the most effective action to stimulate economic activity in the development areas; and calls upon the Government to accept the proposals of the Trades Union Congress for expanding the economy, and to reinforce the creation of jobs in the development areas by adopting the Labour Party policy of setting up public enterprises in those areas'.
That point of view, together with many others, will no doubt be expressed in the debate.
Secondly, may I point out that these are two short censure debates. It will help the Chair, it will help one's colleagues, if anyone who catches Mr. Speaker's eye speaks briefly.

Mr. James Dickens: On a point of order. Is it not astonishing that we should open this debate with not one Treasury Minister on the Government Front Bench, despite the great importance of the Treasury in our economic policy? I wonder whether you can help the House in this respect?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not possible for Mr. Speaker to compel the attendance of anyone, not even the hon. Member himself.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: I beg to move,
That this House, deploring the fact that there has now been the longest continuous period of high unemployment since the war, condemns Her Majesty's Government for failing to honour the assurances given by the Prime Minister that there would be no general rise in unemployment.
It may be astonishing that there is not a Treasury Minister on the Government

Front Bench for this debate, but surely it is even more astonishing that there is no Minister of Labour there. Where is the First Secretary and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity? Perhaps tripping over her titles on the way to the House. We mean no disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State when we make this complaint. We respect his ability and knowledge, we guess that his knowledge may be a little better on this subject than that of his right hon. Friend, but that is not the point. He is not the responsible Minister. There is in this House a tradition, indeed, it is a principle of our system of government, that Ministers are held personally responsible to the House for the affairs of their Departments. I cannot help—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Here is the right hon. Lady."] I do not know whether I should say better late than never.
While we are glad to have the right hon. Lady with us we are still astonished, that she is not to speak in this debate. If we compare the right hon. Lady with all of her predecessors, in both parties, I do not believe that one Minister of Labour in the past, certainly not in the last 20 years, because I have done some research on this this morning—has failed to come to that Box and stand up for his Department's work and policy when we have had a general debate on national employment. I bet that the right hon. Lady will be speaking when we come to the Second Reading of the Equal Pay Bill. She likes being in the kitchen when the sun is shining, but when the heat is on, she gets clear. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt?

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I was only indicating that it would be a good idea if we got down to the debate.

Mr. Carr: At least we will have the second greatest "Whitehall imperialist" winding up the debate.
The basic facts which led to this debate are stark and simple. We are now going through, without any argument, the longest and most continuous period of unemployment in this country since the war. In 29 out of the last 30 months the total of registered unemployed in Great Britain has exceeded half a million. There has been nothing comparable with that in the last quarter of a century.
Let us look not just at the last 30 months, but at the whole 5¼ years of Labour government. Let us not look just at the total of registered unemployed, which is a higher figure, but at the more basic although superficially more favourable figure of the wholly unemployed after excluding the temporarily stopped and the school leavers. Then we find that in the last 63 months under a Labour Government the number of unemployed has exceeded half a million in no less than 30 of those months. During the previous 156 months of Conservative government the figure of half a million was exceeded in only eight months. Those are the basic figures.
Let us turn to the assurances against which these facts have to be judged. Let us lock at the general assurances about the employment situation which formed such an important part of the Prime Minister's sales talk to the electorate in 1964 and 1966, and since. At the time of those General Elections this set the level of expectation which the public looked forward to enjoying under a Labour Government.
First, let us recall what the Prime Minister said at Edinburgh on 3rd March, 1964:
We remember the 7 per cent. Bank Rate…the deliberate slamming on of all the brakes which caused short-time working and unemployment.
We remember them sadly when we look at the figures today and we would wish to go back to them.
Let us look at what the Prime Minister said after he had won the 1964 Election, on 29th October, 1964. This was the scene which he set for the people of the country:
The facilities for further borrowing which have been carefully and closely built up in these past few years have given us a base from which we can advance, without panic measures, without devaluation, without stop and go measures.
Not much more than a week later the Prime Minister said in this House:
One choice was rejected.
he was talking about the Government's economic policy—
We decided firmly against going back to stop-go-stop policies.…We are not prepared to expand unemployment and loss of production which economic defeatism of this kind entails."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 79.]

Let us turn from this type of general assurance, setting the scene, to those assurances which were much more specific. Let us look at the National Plan, published in September, 1965, which spoke about a manpower gap of 400,000 which would require to be bridged if the gross programme was to be achieved. What has actually happened is that the number of employees in employment has fallen from 23,209,000 in September, 1965, to 22,515,000 in March, 1969, the latest date for which figures are available. There has been a drop of almost 700,000 in the number employed since the National Plan foresaw a need for 400,000 more employees. The total wholly unemployed is now almost exactly double the total of September, 1965.
On 26th March, 1966, at Manchester, the Prime Minister said:
These are the issues"—
of the election—
Whether the grave economic difficulties the Tories left us with are to be put right by methods which maintain full employment, or whether, as the Tories keep hinting, by methods involving cutting demand, unleashing deflation and causing unemployment and short-time working.
Who has cut the demand; who has unleashed deflation; who has caused unemployment?
May I take up a remark which I have just overheard from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), speaking from a sitting posture, who said, "The same old Treasury". This may be a point. It may be that what we are suffering from is not a dishonest Prime Minister, but a weak Prime Minister, who makes promises, as he did on housing, who says that no developments, no circumstances, however adverse, will prevent a pledge being carried out, but when the developments take place, when the adverse circumstances arise, there is no strength, only weakness.
May I turn now to the Prime Minister's Press conference of 29th March, 1966 in the last General Election campaign? He answered a direct question put to him, I think on the previous day, by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
Can Mr. Wilson deny that, if he is returned to power there will be an increase in employment in this country this winter?


That is to say, the winter of 1966–67. The Prime Minister gave this answer:
… we see no reason why it should rise at all, apart from seasonal increases.
The assurance was clear and precise, but what happened? In March, 1966, when the Prime Minister gave that assurance, the unemployment figure was 314,000. By December, 1966, it had risen to 564,000. Just to show that it was not just seasonal, let me compare it to the figure for December, 1965, which was 332,000. So much for that pledge.
Then we come to the crisis measures in July, 1966, only four months after the election. The Prime Minister told the House:
If the figure of unemployment were, after all the reabsorption, after all the redeployment and after the measures for regional distribution, to rise to a figure between 1½ and 2 per cent., I do not believe that the House as a whole would consider that unacceptable." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 646.]
Nor would the House as a whole have considered it unacceptable. The Prime Minister's upper limit of 2 per cent. would amount to approximately 470,000 unemployed. At present, the number is about 630,000 unemployed.
May I give one last quotation from the Prime Minister, speaking at Kirkby on 1st May, 1966, still living in cloudcuckoo-land. He said:
We have rejected the stop-go economy—the proposition that you can only pay your way through cutting imports and increasing exports the hard way, through deflation, unemployment and short-time working.
I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks that his Government have been doing since then.
The assurances that there would be no general rise in unemployment under a Labour Government are clear, strong, undeniable. It is also undeniable that there has been a large and persistent general increase in unemployment. It is also undeniable that this increase has been and still is the direct result of the Government's own policies, and that the Government must have known that this would be the result of those policies when them embarked on them. They lied to the country.

Mr. Dickens: It is also undeniable that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has made it plain time and again in this House that he and

the party he represents support deflation, that they would not expand the economy, and that what this country is suffering from now is consensus economic policies which have led to the present high level of unemployment.

Mr. Carr: I think that the House and the country as a whole will believe what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) persistently fails to see or believe, that facts speak louder than words.
All through the period when the Conservative Government were said to be following these stop-go policies, these deflationary measures which the Prime Minister said he would do away with if only the country would elect a Labour Government, all through those 156 months, the figure of unemployment rose above the 500,000 level in only eight months, compared with 29 out of the last 30. Let us judge them by that record.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: What was the peak?

Mr. Carr: The peak was about 840,000. That was for one month. What was the peak when there was last a Labour Government?

Mr. Wilkins: In 1947.

Mr. Carr: And that peak was 1,800,000. If the hon. Gentleman will not take it from me, perhaps he will take it from Mr. Victor Feather, who, a week or so ago commenting on the January figures, said:
The number of men and women completely out of work now exceeds 600,000 for the first time since 1963. Nor does this include the 38,000 unemployed in Northern Ireland. The 1963 figure was very much affected by the exceptional winter then.
Just as was the 1947 figure.
Mr. Feather went on to say:
So that these"—
the January figures—
are the highest figures since soon after the war.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take from the General Secretary of the T.U.C. what he is perhaps not prepared to take from me.
May I look a little more deeply into the facts which lie behind these overall unemployment figures. Let us look at the


regions and consider the monthly averages of unemployment at the beginning of the Labour Government's period of office and now. London and the South-East, in 1965 the monthly average unemployment was 0 8 per cent.; in 1969, 1·5 per cent. Eastern and Southern Region, 1965, 0·9 per cent.; last year, 1·7 per cent. South-Western, in 1964, 1·5 per cent.; last year, 2·6 per cent. West Midlands, in 1964, 0·8 per cent.; last year, 1·7 per cent. East Midlands, in 1965, 0·8 per cent.; last year 1·9 per cent.
Yorkshire and Humberside, in 1965, 1·0 per cent; last year, 2·5 per cent. North-Western, in 1964, 2 per cent.; last year, 2·4 per cent. Northern, in 1964, 3·2 per cent.; last year, 4·7 per cent. Wales, in 1964, 2·4 per cent.; last year, 3·9 per cent. Scotland, in 1964, 3·5 per cent.; last year, 3·6 per cent.
But the unemployment figures do not tell the whole story. When job opportunities are poor, large numbers of people just disappear from the labour market and do not show up in those figures. We always have to look at the other side of the coin, the number actually in employment.

Mr. John Nott: The figures quoted by my right hon. Friend are very interesting, but even they do not show the true gravity of the situation. In a Parliamentary Answer I received on 19th January the Minister said that the number of people unemployed in Cornwall is now 50 per cent. above the figure in November, 1964. What sort of regional development is that?

Mr. Carr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) for pointing that out. If I had the time, I could, in all these main regions, find case after case of the kind that he has mentioned.
We want also to look at the employment figures. For Great Britain as a whole there were 676,000 fewer people in jobs in March, 1969, than there were in March, 1966. What an achievement in three years to reduce the number of people in jobs by 676,000! Then in terms of percentage change Scotland is the only region in the country where the percentage increase has been relatively small in unemployment, but looking at employment we find that in Scotland there were

66,000 fewer people in jobs in March last year than in March three years earlier, when the Prime Minister was giving his pledge.

Mr. Alex Eadie: The right hon. Member is making play with the unemployment figures, but would he not agree that in 1963, the year before the Labour Government came to power, there were 136,000 people unemployed in Scotland?

Mr. Carr: As a matter of fact, I am talking about the employment figures. We have debated unemployment in Scotland many times and no doubt will be debating it again. No doubt my hon. Friend, in winding up for this side, will have something to say about that matter.
The point I make is that there were 66,000 fewer jobs in Scotland last year than there were when this Government took office. There were 49,000 fewer jobs in Wales, 66,000 fewer in the Northern Region, 111,000 fewer in the North Western Region, 62,000 fewer in the West Midlands, 106.000 fewer in Yorkshire and Humberside, 156,000 fewer in the South-East, 43,000 fewer in the South West, 19,000 fewer in the East Midlands. That is the picture.
Finally, let us look at what the serious general rise in unemployment means in human terms to some of the weakest most needy members of our community. The unemployed registered disabled workers, in December, 1964, numbered 50,400; by December, 1968, the number had risen to 68,300, and by December, 1969, it had risen again to 71,600.
Look now at long-term unemployment. It is now fashionable for Ministers to excuse the unemployment figures by talking about people now taking longer in choosing their next job, because of redundancy payments, and so forth. There may be something in this; but the hypocrisy of this claim overall is apparent when one considers the figures of duration of unemployment. Those who had been unemployed for between two and six months in January, 1966, numbered 89,000. By October, 1969, the last available date for these figures, the number had risen to 132,000. The number unemployed for more than six months and up to one year in January, 1966, amounted to 31,000, and by last October had risen to 62,000—the


number of unemployed in that category had doubled.
As for the number of people continuously unemployed for over a year, in January, 1966, there were 51,000 in that category and by last October that number had risen to 95,000. It is taking them a very long time to choose that wonderful new job waiting for them under this glorious Government, and at this moment in history the party opposite chooses to placard the country with notices about "Life and Soul".
But what of the future? The National Institute for Economic and Social Research, in its November, 1969, review, had this to say, and I quote partly from page 11 and partly from page 17:
Although output is now recovering from a period of stagnation the further growth in prospect on present policies would appear to be insufficient to prevent a significant rise in unemployment during 1970. … Although faulty seasonal adjustments are obscuring the short term path of unemployment the gap between productive potential growth and forecast growth is so large that the trend of unemployment must be upwards and, again on the assumption of unchanged policies, would reach something over 700,000 by the end of 1970.
What is the Government's forecast? Will they make changes in policies? Do they agree with the National Institute and, if not, why not? Let us have chapter and verse. If they do intend to change their policies, then let us hear about them. These are the questions which the House, the country, and above all the unemployed, want answered today, not at a moment to suit the budgetary convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
What will Ministers do? We do not want excuses, because the facts, when compared with the promises, are inexcusable. We want no more dishonest assurances. We want no more gimmicks. We just want, for a change, some plain truth and some hard, properly-thought-out action.

Miss Margaret Herbison: On a point of order. I should like your help on this matter, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) has spent the whole of his time in trying to denigrate this side of the House. May we be told whether this is merely a propaganda exercise, with no concern for the unemployed? The right hon. Gentleman has

not said one word about how his party would deal with the situation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are all very fond of the right hon. Lady, but that is not a point of order.

Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that this is a very short debate and that points of order take time.

Mr. Mendelson: Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to lead the House to believe that he intended to state his policies and then to prevent any of our interventions by suddenly sitting down, so that nobody could ask him a question? It was misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has followed a very bad example set by the right hon. Lady. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. As no policy whatsoever has been presented by the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS "Read the Motion."] —would you, Mr. Speaker, on this specific point of order, reconsider the question of calling the Amendment, which does propose a policy for helping the unemployed?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be a good enough parliamentarian finally to get to a real point of order as he did, but the answer is, "No".

4.10 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity (Mr. Edmund Dell): The House as a whole seems to be substantially agreed on one point at any rate, and that is that the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) did not make a particularly constructive speech. He has certainly not given us a clear idea of what his party would do if it formed the Government.
Nevertheless, I am prepared to state straight away that we are in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman on one point, and that is that unemployment is a major social problem involving considerable personal distress and economic loss; and that it is a particularly difficult problem in the development areas and


to those who are a long time on the register.
Unfortunately, the longer a man is on the register the longer he is likely to remain on it. On the other hand, two-thirds of the people who go on to the register leave it within four weeks—in other words, there is a considerable turnover of labour leaving behind it a core of long-term unemployed.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fall in the level of employment since 1966. There have always been variations in the level of employment, depending on the level of demand in the economy. At least, this time we have been controlling demand with some success and have achieved a major success on the balance of payments front. In the past, the extent of the variation— depending on demand—has been concealed, and was concealed, up to about 1965 by the expansion in the population of working age. Since 1965, the population of working age has been expanding very slowly and, therefore, the full effect of the variation in the level of demand has been shown.
This has been the ordinary cyclical effect and has been compounded by the secular rundown which is inevitable and necessary in employment in a whole series of major traditional industries in this country—such as mining and quarrying, metal manufacture, textiles, clothing, heavy electrical engineering, and shipbuilding. The rundown in shipbuilding would have been much more but for the Shipbuilding Act, passed by this Government.
However, the figures in 1966 with which the right hon. Gentleman compared the present employment figures, included, for example, 300,000 to 350,000 full-time students working part-time, but possessing national insurance cards. Today, the figure is almost certainly very much less. Since then, more men over the age of 65 and women over the age of 60 have retired though the fall in activity rates for men over 65 and women over 60 is no greater than in previous cycles.
There are 150,000 more people in full-time education. If one makes what I think is the fairer comparison than with the very high level of demand in 1966, if one takes 1964. which was a boom

year and an election year, when the economy was stimulated for electoral purposes, and discounts that factor of additional people in education, the employment situation in the two years was much the same. In other words, the projections show a fairly stable working population as far ahead as can be seen.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to —and the Motion refers to—the high level of unemployment over a period of time. It is quite clear, and at one point the right hon. Gentleman came near lo accepting it, that the significance of the unemployment figures for the level of demand for labour was quite different from what it was before 1966. This is largely the effect of the introduction of redundancy payments and wage related unemployment benefits which were quite rightly introduced to ease the necessary process of redeployment of the labour force.
Those measures also had their effect on the unemployment figures. The effect of the redundancy payments system, so far as we can judge, is that people are more easily accepting redundancy, where necessary, and there has been considerable mobility from declining to developing industries. More than 900.000 people have so far received redundancy payments and the effect of wage-related benefits has been that people seem to be more selective in choosing jobs as regards, for example, the pay and conditions of employment which they will accept.
Quite a short extra time spent voluntarily on the register seeking a job can have a marked effect on the unemployment figures.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Prior to the implementation of the redundancy payments scheme the traditional way for the trade union movement to deal with redundancy was to adopt a "last in, first out" policy. But with the inception of redundancy payments there has been an element of voluntary redundancy at the older level. These people are going on the unemployment market and taking with them £400, £500, or £600 redundancy payments. Employers, particularly Tory employers, because they want to find some benefits when they are taking on new labour, will not look at this age group.

Mr. Dell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making this point, which supports what I am saying.
But does the right hon. Gentleman accept this? He said he accepted that it might be responsible for a small part of the problem, but I suspect that it is responsible for a large part of the problem. If it is, it is absurd to say, as the Motion does, that a crude comparison can be made today with the figures before 1966.

Mr. R. Carr: It may account for a small unknown part of the problem. But what it cannot account for is that in 1966 there were 82,300 unemployed for longer than six months and the last figure shows that that number had more than doubled to 167,300. That more than doubling in the long-term unemployed shows exactly what has been happening.

Mr. Dell: I have said that there are two main factors in the situation. One is the control over the level of demand which has had success for this country in securing a major balance of payments surplus. The second is the factor which I am now mentioning.
The question which the right hon. Gentleman has not answered is whether he accepts—-as I think the figures compel him to, if he is honest—that the introduction of the two measures to which I have referred has had a substantial effect on the unemployment figures. There is much other evidence for the fact that the figures today have an entirely different significance from previously for the amount of slack in the economy. First, there is the quantity of vacancies of which we have been notified. In the past, we had a large number of vacancies only in times of low unemployment. Alternatively, we had low vacancies at times of high unemployment. Now we are in a situation when the figure of vacancies is high at a time when the figures of unemployment are also high.
For example, in December, 1969, there was a high figure of 100,000 vacancies. I should emphasise that these are vacancies notified to our employment exchanges. They are not the full figures of vacancies. We know, for example, that whenever we have a trawl of employers to find other opportunities for employment, for example, where there is redundancy, we always get far more.
That high figure went along with a figure for wholly unemployed men of 470,000. In December, 1961, when there were 100,000 vacancies for men the number of wholly unemployed men was 250,000, just over half the December, 1959, figure. In other words, the 100,000 vacancies corresponded with unemployment figures of 250,000 in 1961, and 470,000 in December, 1969.

Mr. John Brewis: Where are the vacancies? Are they in the North of England and Scotland?

Mr. Dell: These vacancies are distributed all over the country. They are known to employment exchanges which are attempting to fill them with the people they know to be unemployed.
Further evidence of the change in the significance of the unemployment figure and of the level of demand is provided by the rapid rate of turnover in manufacturing industry, a rate typical in the past of much lower unemployment levels, and the extent of overtime working, and indeed the scarcity of short-time working.
An important part of the responsibility for dealing with this problem of high vacancies amidst high unemployment figures falls on our employment services. When we came into office we found that these services had been seriously run down by the Conservative Party. The number of staff directly employed on finding employment for adults able to be employed, which was 4,500 on 1st January, 1951, had been allowed to fall away by 1st January, 1958, to a figure of 3,200. There was then a slight recovery, because on 1st January, 1965, the figure was 3,500. We are building up the numbers in our employment services, and by 1st January, 1970, they had reached 5,000.
It is important to do this even in conditions of high vacancies and low unemployment, because there is a major economic gain to the country if one can fill jobs more rapidly. There is, therefore, no question of these employment services not being necessary at a time of low unemployment. We are increasing the number of staff involved, we are improving the management structure, and we have further plans which we shall bring before the House in due course. There is a large economic return on these


services, and they should be expanded, and not neglected as they were under the Conservative Government.
The development of industrial training is another way in which we are tackling the problem of high vacancies as well as the national need for more trained workers. The training of skilled people is important. It helps them, and it helps to carry into employment with them semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Some industrialists in development areas have told me that the Government should stop encouraging new companies going to development areas. They say that there is no surplus of labour, particularly of skilled labour, and that they find it difficult already to recruit the people they want. I entirely reject that view. All that they are drawing attention to is one of the major structural problems of the development areas. A large number of people possess inadequate skills, redundant skills, or no skills at all.
I can understand the wish of some industrialists not to have more competition for the existing labour, but in the development areas we need this type of competition. It helps to persuade industry in the development areas, to train more people, and in the development areas there is a large pool of trainable people. That is why the Government have placed such emphasis on industrial training and have given particular emphasis to industrial training in the development areas. Here, too, we were faced with a long period of neglect by Conservative Governments, and I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not even mention this subject today.
One of the great tragedies of the postwar economic situation was the neglect by the Government of this country after 1951 of industrial training, particularly in manufacturing industry. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman was closely associated with this neglect. His report in 1958 on training for skill was hardly a clarion call to industrial training in this country. Rather, it reflected the complacent attitude of the time to industrial training. In 1962, when average unemployment in this country was 463,000, without the benefit of redundancy payments or wage-related benefits, the then

Government had only 15 Government training centres left, and in that situation they shut down two of those.
It is true that after 12 wasted years of Tory neglect there came their deathbed repentance, the Industrial Training Act, and the beginning of the re-expansion of the Government training centres. But since this Government came into power we have continued with expansion under the Industrial Training Act. We have had expansion in the number of Government training centres, with emphasis on the development areas, because it is these areas which have the greatest resources of trainable labour. In October, 1964, there were 10 Government training centres serving the development areas. In January, 1970, that figure had risen to 21, and at the end of the present programme the figure will be 26.
There has been an expansion in the amount of grant for the training of industry in development areas, which is being extended to the intermediate areas. The annual rate of grant has been expanded nearly 10 times since the first two years of this Government. We have had expansion in the percentage of young people entering apprenticeships, even though more are going to universities and staying on at school. We are beginning sponsored training, a system of particular relevance to the special problems of the development areas, but also to the country generally.

Sir Douglas Glover: I am sure that the House is interested in those figures, but can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the 620 now unemployed are undergoing retraining?

Mr. Dell: The total output of the Government training centres in 1969 was about 12.000. This included about 40 per cent. of people who, when they went into training, were unemployed. In addition, there is the system of industrial training boards which train far larger numbers, and into which the extension of Government training centres injects an important element of flexibility.
Nevertheless, I accept that we need to find more ways of training unemployed people and increasing the number of unemployed people who are given training. This is something which was not done by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is something to which we need to give more


attention than we have so far. As an example of a new development on which we are working, we are currently considering the introduction, where posible, in Government training centres of limited skill engineering classes for the unemployed. A major part of the problem exists in the development areas. Difficulties continue in the development areas, particularly in the Northern Region, but the overall position has improved relative to the country as a whole.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: In addition to using Government training centres for training the unemployed, will my right hon. Friend consider using training colleges which have facilities available for this purpose?

Mr. Dell: I think that we should use everything that is available, and I shall look into that.
In mid-1964, as evidence of the overall relative improvement in the position in development areas, the rate of unemployment was 2·2 times that of Great Britain as a whole. By mid-1969 that relationship had fallen to 1·72. In other words, the relationship has improved despite the rapid run-down in traditional industries largely concentrated in the development areas. It was said, or implied, by the right hon. Gentleman that improvement had taken place only at a higher level of unemployment, but if what I have said about the change in significance in the unemployment figures is true, then the important point is the improvement in the relative position of the development areas.
Some of my hon. Friends say in their Amendment that more public enterprises should be set up in the development areas. They may not be satisfied with what has been done, but there are more public enterprises in the development areas than ever before. There is the aluminium smelter project which has been established with Government help. There is taking place a major dispersal of Government offices to the development areas. There is Government purchasing policy which gives a measure of preference to the development areas.

Mr. John Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend proceed to discuss the first important part of the Amendment; namely, that

Her Majesty's Government have not reduced unemployment by pursuing expansionist policies and by taking the most effective action to stimulate economic activity …?
Will he, before he sits down, deal primarily with the crux of this debate?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend, as usual, foresees the matters that I am going to come to, although he will no doubt appreciate also that I have not come to the Box this afternoon to make a Budget speech.
I can quite understand that my hon. Friends may think that the improvement is not fast enough but in a sense it can never be fast enough, and I, representing a development area, am very sensitive to the speed of improvement in this field. But it needs to be remembered that the investment grant system was introduced only in 1966 and therefore the differential in favour of the development areas also was only introduced in 1966 and the regional employment premium was only introduced in 1967. It has only been since this Government has been in power that the conduct of the industrial development certificate policy has been made really determined.
I am afraid one cannot change major structural deformations that have been with us for at least 40 years in the lifetime of a single Parliament, especially if the problems are compounded by the rapid run-down in employment in traditional industries. But we have made considerable progress and I am certain that it will not help to abolish the Measures which we have introduced and which are succeeding in assisting with the problems of the development areas.
The improvement in the relative position of the development areas will enable the economy to be run on a higher average level of demand with less waste of people and resources. We have been watching with some interest—and I had hoped the right hon. Gentleman might have told us something about it this afternoon—what really was decided at Selsdon Park about policies for the development areas. We are told that the Conservatives will abolish our measures even though evidently they accept that our measures have had the effect of influencing the location of investment in this country. They will phase out the regional employment premium, though they do not say exactly


what that will mean. Does it mean that they are going to phase it out before the seven years to which we are committed? What are they going to do to assist the development areas? In particular, what are they going to do to counterbalance the capital-intensive nature of the investment allowance they intend to restore by a system paying some regard to employment? All this, which we might have expected to hear from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon in a debate devoted to unemployment, we have not heard. I hoped this would be part of the constructive policies which might have been developed before us, but he has not given us any insight into them.
Of course—here I come to the point which my hon. Friend has just raised—the short way with unemployment would be to raise the level of demand in the economy; but this, done too fast, could be the short way to unemployment through a balance of payments crisis. We must consolidate our balance of payments position, therefore, we must have priority for exports and investment as methods of raising demand and hence reducing unemployment. I am certain that investment particularly will flourish best against the background of a secure balance of payments and the prospect of steady growth. I am certain also that the prospects for investment could be damaged by suggestions of fundamental changes in or even the abolition of investment incentives such as we have heard recently from right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I come to my final point. The rate of unemployment in this country has been pretty stable since 1967, though, I agree, too high, particularly in the development areas. It is widely accepted, however, that the figures no longer have their former significance as to the level of demand for labour and that it has been sensible to control home demand while transferring resources to exports. Why, then, this censure debate now, after three years during which home demand has been kept under strict control to facilitate the switch in resources to the balance of payments? Why now when we have mastered the balance of payments problem, when we have created a basis for expansion, when the success of our economic policies has become apparent? Perhaps because right hon.

Gentlemen opposite have suddenly become concerned about the level of unemployment in what they think to he an election year.
During the past two years, contrary to previous cycles, we have had growth and a remarkable improvement in the balance of payments. This is the basis on which to build, keeping both objectives—growth and the balance of payments—well in hand. A major aim of the Government on both economic and social grounds is to cut unemployment and maintain full employment on a secure and lasting basis. The policies of the Government are those best designed to achieve this, and I ask the House to support the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would remind the House that this is a very short debate and that many Members wish to speak. Therefore, I appeal to Members to keep their contributions brief.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I wish to speak to the House this afternoon very briefly and entirely uncontro versially. I want to focus the attention of hon. Members and those taking part in this debate on the economic difficulties which Northern Ireland is facing at the present time, so shortly after the political difficulties which occurred in 1969. As I say, I hope to make an uncontroversial speech.
I remind the House of the figures: 7·4 per cent. unemployed; 9·5 per cent. men without a job; 1,200 jobs lost since Christmas. These are some of the basic facts of the situation. What are the reasons behind them?
My hon. Friend has referred to the economic climate for which the Government here are responsible. I do not intend to dwell on that this afternoon, but there is no doubt in my mind that one of the major reasons for the economic difficulties which we are facing at the moment is a direct result of the riots and destruction of 1969. I hope that it will be possible for the House to rise to the occasion this afternoon and give its help to Northern Ireland.
The effect of these disturbances is that it is very difficult now for the Northern Ireland Government to attract new industry. There have been a number of job announcements recently, but I wish to


emphasise one point about jobs in the pipeline, jobs which would be coming along and employing men and women in 18 months' or two years' time. These are not being attracted at present, so there is a difficult problem a little way ahead.
The effect has been noticeable on existing industry. I talked a moment ago of 1,200 jobs lost since Christmas time. I refer, also, to the cutting-back in the investment programme of very many of the existing firms. I refer to Short Brothers, in which the Minister of Technology has taken a great interest, and I hope that later in the debate, or soon afterwards, he will be able to say something of the plans for the financial reorganisation of that firm, as there is great concern about this among those employed in it.
I hope that the catalogue I have given will convince the House of the grave damage that has been done by the political disturbances in the streets last year, and I say this afternoon to both sides—Protestant and Catholic, Unionist and Republican—that they should beware lest by their actions on the streets they put Northern Ireland's economic position in jeopardy. They should be very careful indeed of the consequences of their acts.
I say this, also, to industrialists who have been holding back on investment. On television last year, they saw much of the disturbances, but these were, of course, in limited areas, although I am not for one moment attempting to underestimate their effect. The general picture was that industry was not greatly affected and that people had continued at work and were getting on well with their fellow workers.
I gave some figures when I was in the United States. About 19,000 jobs are the direct result of American investment in Northern Ireland totalling 200 million dollars. I was able to tell the Americans that not a single hour had been lost because of the unrest during last summer. I also remind the House that the men in the shipyard joined together in pledging themselves not to take part in this madness. It is worth making the point a thousandfold that men at work with a good job and a stake in the community are much less likely to cause trouble. That is the essential dilemma

which I put to the House. If more jobs are brought to Northern Ireland, there will be less unrest and trouble in the streets, but if there is unrest and trouble in the streets, there is less likelihood of attracting more jobs to Ulster. That is the fundamental dilemma.
The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland will be seeing the Home Secretary and other British Ministers tomorrow. I ask the Government here to join with the Northern Ireland Government in substantial measures to promote economic advance, to provide new jobs and to provide industrial assistance to Northern Ireland, because that is the most constructive contribution that they can make at present not only to solving our economic problems, but to getting us back to normal as a community.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: I was gratified to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister of State a reference in his peroration to full employment. It was rather nostalgic, because it is several years since we talked about full employment, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology will give the official Government definition of full employment for the present and the future.
The phrase "full employment" passed into misuse when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister changed it to "equalisation of differentials in the regions". That was supplemented by various other remarks equally incomprehensible to those of us who had pinned our flag of full employment to the mast in our constituencies.
In the debate on the Address, not so very long ago, employment was referred to not in terms of full employment, but in terms that the Government would "safeguard" employment, although we were not told at what level. In the debate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology said:
As exports rise the demand for labour will increase."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1969; Vol. 790, c. 775.]
Now we are in a position where, happily, our exports have reached record levels. At the same time, our unemployment has also reached record levels. Although it has been gratifying to hear about the amount of money, time and work which has been put into the special


development areas, we should consider whether much of the work has been worth while. I have figures here published in HANSARD on 24th June last. They show that, in the special development areas over the years from April, 1964, to April, 1969, these special efforts resulted in almost a doubling of unemployment. That is so for Scotland, Wales and the Northern Region.
Anyone interested can see the figures going up from 7,931 in April, 1964, to 15,576 in April, 1969. There may well have been a grand expansion of modern development in these special development areas, but the number of unemployed has, unfortunately, practically doubled.
It is true that the unemployed no longer march on London and no longer petition their Members of Parliament for work. They are being paid to keep quiet. While this may be all right for the political climate of the country, I cannot think that it is all right for its economic life to have so many people anxious and willing to work, anxious to contribute to the economic prosperity of the country, but paid to sit idly by and do nothing. Since they are being paid only slightly less in most cases than they would get if they were at work, they are still consuming to the same extent as they would be if they were at work, although if they were at work they would be consuming the wealth they were producing themselves.
Unfortunately, my constituency is not in a special development area. We have only recently succeeded in getting it put into the schedule of grey areas. In one part of the constituency, called Thorne, I have been comparing the figures over the last few years. In October, 1964, there were 360 unemployed. In October, 1969, there were 1,075. The last figure I have, for 29th January last, shows that there were 1,205 registered as unemployed. That means between 11 and 12 per cent.
It is difficult to calculate the exact percentage, because there has been a little statistical shuffle in the area. My heavily unemployed area has been amalgamated for statistical purposes with two other areas where the unemployment figures are not so high, and then an average has been taken. So I am told that the figure is about 4 or 5 per cent., whereas, in

accordance with the working population registered in the area, it would be not far short of 12 per cent. In Goole, the major town in my constituency, the unemployment figure is a clear straightforward 5·7 per cent. and is the worst for 10 years.
The fact that it is the worst for 10 years is rather striking, because I have raised the question of unemployment in the area on a number of occasions. I have had sympathetic replies from various Ministers. I had one from my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), when he was a Minister, in reply to a Question of mine about unemployment. I would like to quote what he said:
I will give second place to no man in this House or in this country in my determination to try to resolve this problem not only in the North-East but wherever it occurs. No society can call itself civilised if it stands idly by and sees young boys or adults rotting away without knowing the satisfaction of earning their living and the dignity and self-respect which comes from that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1969; Vol. 784, c. 223.]
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend has been moved from his position. It rather reminds me of King Edward VIII who, going into the depressed areas and being moved into making statements somewhat similar, was removed from his position, too.
The Minister of Technology tells us that we must accept more unemployment as the price of the technological white heat revolution which he is bringing about in the country. The late Ernest Bevin, who knew something about the working class of this country, said, in December, 1943, in discussing what would happen after the war:
It is not enough merely to say that this country is going to be poor … Tnis country will not be able for the next 50 years to afford an unemployed man."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 10th December, 1943; Vol. 395, c. 1349.]
I should think that was sound commonsense with the rebuilding, the reshaping —of our towns and cities, our agriculture and our industries that is necessary. Of course, Ernie Bevin knew nothing then about the activities of the Minister of Technology.

Mr. Benn: I am listening with keen attention to my hon. Friend. However, I do not recall his earlier quotation of me. I am sure that it is not a quotation. Nor


am I conscious that my Department is responsible for the technical changes going on in industry or the consequences thereof.

Mr. Jeger: I was not directly quoting my right hon. Friend. I was translating from Oxford University Debating Society English into plain English what my right hon. Friend said in November in the debate on the Queen's Speech. If he will look at what he said, the implications were very near to the Luddite philosophy of many years ago, that the introduction of more technology, more machinery and more scientific application to modern industry would inevitably bring more unemployment. I think that that is a fair summary of what my right hon. Friend said during that debate.
We are told by our constituents—and I was told only this weekend—that a large number of people are today getting far more money for not working than if they were working. I asked for names and addresses, which they were reluctant to give. But I am sure that in every working-class constituency there are streets in which this kind of thing is said and where people can point to neighbours who are receiving more for being idle than if they were working.
This was denied when it was brought up in the House on a number of occasions and similar accusations were made. Unfortunately, the Government at that time were not prepared to accept these criticisms and the facts. But we all know that there are a number of these people—scroungers—and that they do not bring popularity to the Government or to their humane schemes for seeing that those who have no work are maintained.
Public opinion polls, as well as the by-elections, should be a warning to the Government. In 1964 and 1966 Government spokesmen claimed that we would do unpopular things. The Government may claim that they have certainly succeeded in that. But I am hoping that, as this is supposed to be election year, we shall see a change.
I take comfort from the fact that, in his Swansea speech, the Prime Minister said:
We shall not seek, as others did, to sweep these issues under the carpet for electoral reasons, to pretend they are not there. We shall identify, publish, educate, act.

I hope that in this election year we will get action for an expansionist policy to develop the wealth of the country and to put to work those men and women, and juniors, who are only too anxious to earn their own living.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: I find myself in almost complete sympathy with everything that the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) said in his able speech. He talked of full employment and the fact that we had moved away from the definition of it given, I think, by the late Hugh Gaitskell. We were much nearer achieving Mr. Gaitskell's assessment of full employment during the 13 years of Conservative Administration than we have been in the last five or six years.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Goole that, although there may be some immediate apparent advantage in paying unemployed people to keep quiet, unemployment is highly deplorable and and that many of those who may be being paid to keep quiet at this time hate being unemployed and would do anything to have a job. I hope that the Government fully realise this.
I share the hon. Gentleman's regret at the departure from office of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), who, I am pleased to see, is now in his place. As a north-eastern Member, he is fully aware of the severe problem still facing the area which we both attempt to represent.
I find it strange indeed that we should have a Minister supposedly responsible for the North-East who is not in his place for this debate, partly because he is directly connected with employment and unemployment and partly because, as always, the North-East has the biggest problem in the whole country in this regard. As the Minister responsible for employment and as a north-eastern Member, he should be in his place. It is amazing that he is not.
The Minister of State talked about unemployment in development areas still being too high. It certainly is. He also talked about vacancies all over the country. There is a great shortage of jobs in my region, about which I shall have something to say. The right hon. Gentleman also talked about industrial training. I hope to mention something about


that, too, particularly the problem of sponsored training.
I violently disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's final words. He suggested that it is only in election year that hon. Members on this side of the House have had an interest in and an awareness of unemployment. This is untrue. I have taken part in debate after debate on unemployment whilst we have been in opposition, and here we go again.

Mr. John Mendelson: In opposition?

Mr. Elliott: We have taken part in debates on unemployment when in office, too, but the problem was never so acute.

Mr. Mendelson: It was much bigger.

Mr. Elliott: Not at all.

Mr. Archie Manuel: Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire) rose—

Mr. Elliott: I will give way in a moment.
May I say, in answer to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), that we were castigated constantly when in office for not being able to plan in this regard. The planners have had their chance, they have had their day, and a fine old mess they have made of it.

Mr. Manuel: When the hon. Gentleman says that the problem was not so big under the Tories as it is now, I hope that he will exclude from that argument Scotland, where, while we are dissatisfied with the present figures, in the early 1960s unemployment rose as high as 136,000.

Mr. Elliott: This is a fair comment. I shall refer to the slightly improved position in Scotland presently.
On whether it was better or worse, I do not think that we can get very far, except that in the North-East—and it is in that region where the problem is greater than anywhere else in the country —the only year when we have managed to achieve the 15,000 new jobs a year which the North-East Development Council determined were needed to replace redundant jobs in industry, was 1964, the year immediately after we lost office; in other words, due to the actions of a Conservative Government.
I repeat that nowhere is unemployment more acute than in the Northern Region, which carries 10 per cent. of the total unemployment in the country despite having only 4·8 per cent. of the total work force. If this does not emphasise the problem to Ministers, it jolly well should do. In the North-East as a whole there are 13 unemployed men for every vacancy. Bad though it is, the national position is not nearly as bad as that. Nationally, there are only four unemployed men for every job vacant.
When we break down the North-East into areas, the problem becomes very acute. On Wearside—I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in his place—there are 59 unemployed men for every vacant place. In South-East Northumberland there are 40, in South-East Durham there are 53, in The Hartlepools there are 43, and on the North Yorkshire Coast—not so far from the constituency of Goole—there are no fewer than 101 unemployed men for every vacant job. On Tyneside, which I principally represent, the heart of a great industrial area where the position should be very good, there are 15 unemployed men for every vacant job.
Despite our particularly bad position in the North-East, we are still receiving £48 per head in public investment, whereas Scotland, which has an improved position—1 per cent. lower unemployment—still receives £62 per head. The Secretary of State for Scotland, with his usual bland optimism in which we can never quite believe, said recently that Scotland had now reached the stage when she could be selective in her new industry. I very much doubt whether Scotland is in such a favourable position, but the lesson which we must learn is that, if Scotland can be selective, the North-East would still be glad of anything at all.
Before commenting on what is basically wrong with our position, I appeal to the Government to have the courage to accept the general Hunt proposal that a degree of descheduling, where this has become possible, must be undertaken. I know that this will take electoral courage, but only by so doing can the worst areas get the aid which they now urgently require.
The position of the Northern Region worsens. In 1968, 11·1 million square feet of factory space was approved and 3 million completed. In 1969, 9 million


square feet was approved, despite the fact that our unemployment has risen, and an enormous amount of financial aid has been poured into the regions. But our case has been and continues to be that it is not being poured in to the best effect, that aid must be more selective if it is to do good quickly. After all, the case for the regional employment premium was that it would solve the unemployment problem quickly. It has not done so. We appeal to the Government to recognise this basic fact.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He seemed to be arguing at one point that we urgently need still more Government intervention and aid to ensure the industry, and I agree with him. But, on the other hand, he says that we must be more selective, that we need, as his party has said, to cut out a large part of the existing aid.

Mr. Elliott: No, I am suggesting that the aid which is being given is being given in the wrong way in most cases—not in every case, of course—and that the aid which we need is not necessarily additional financial aid.
Taking men only in the Northern Region, of 52,000 unemployed men only 8,000 are registered as craftsmen. This is a major problem with regard to training. There is an urgent need for a review of training requirements. I would point out to the Minister, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), who says that our awareness of the unemployment problem is a new one, that over and over again I have pleaded for a particular and special review of the skill requirements of particularly new industry in the North-East. There is an urgent need also, particularly in shipbuilding and heavy engineering, for a lifting of the union restrictions on the entry of trainees which still exists in some cases.
The hon. Member talked of our having failed to do enough with regard to industrial training. But amazingly high barriers were placed against us by union restriction of entry of trainees into crafts. Second, it is well worth recalling—[Interruption.] If hon. Members do not agree with me on that, they may agree with my second reason—that, in our days, not nearly so many people were

unemployed. There was a time—this can be checked by hon. Members—when I entered the House about 12 years ago, when the 699 Government training places could not be filled in the North-East because we had then, comparatively, virtually full employment.
But those days are far behind us. There is now an enormous immediate training problem. I appeal to the Government for immediate consideration to be given to all aspects of Government training, particularly to a training payment on an earnings-related basis. Far too many men, I find from my researches during the Recess and at other times, still fear losing money if they go into training. This should not and must not be.
A major cause of unemployment in the Northern Region or anywhere else is the failure of the Government's economic policy. It is nothing short of scandalous that, first of all, the Prime Minister, in various parts of the country and various parts of the world, and, second, his Ministerial colleagues, should claim that economic restriction has managed to allow this country to turn the corner economically. It is suppression that is the main trouble in the North-East—not lack of financial aid, but suppression of industry and of smaller business. It is rigid financial control which is heavily curtailing financial investment. We have severe deflation in the North-East and only by a measure of reflation can there be any hope of getting back to a reasonable level of employment.
Industry and business generally in my region is short in liquidity and, in consequence, in investment. The Government's rigid control has had some very unfortunate effects. I am sure that several north-eastern Members opposite will agree with me that it is nothing short of tragic that Crowborough Engineering, of Aycliffe, is to close its doors. It is obvious that this firm and innumerable others could be readjusted, rejigged and retooled, and re-employed, if they had the money to carry them over an adaptation period. But in big and small business, this is the great problem—with Bank Rate at its present level, and the unavailability of capital, it is impossible for firms to have any employment at all. This is the biggest trouble of all.
It is a far cry from the days when I was a back bencher on the other side of the House and we used to be castigated and told that we could not plan. The self-righteous critics of those days have had their chance and have hopelessly failed. The Northern Echo summed up the position perfectly when it said in a leader this morning:
The number of unemployed men in the North-East of England was 21,000 higher in January, 1970, than it was in January, 1960.
We could not have a more concise condemnation of Labour's hopeless policies for the development areas.
My great fear now is that this discredited Government, who dare not go to the country, will hang on for too long. The Prime Minister has a Macawber outlook, but the unemployed of the North-East realise that something will not just turn up. The only hope we have is for a General Election to take place. We pray that it will come soon.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: It is evident from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Conservatives do not have an answer to the problem we are discussing. They have never had an answer to it, and their remarks are totally irrelevant to this debate. Considering that they took the initiative in calling the debate, it is surprising that they have nothing to say to resolve this problem.
While we have great respect for my right hon. Friend who has spoken and for the Minister of Technology, who is to reply to the debate, they are not the appropriate Ministers to deal with this subject, for this is first and foremost a matter for the Treasury. Treasury policy has brought us to the present position and is maintaining the current rate of unemployment. Only a change in Treasury policy will reverse the present sad state of affairs and give an impetus to the removal of the growing unemployment problem.
Reference has been made to pockets of high unemployment, and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) spoke of the situation in Northern Ireland. The unemployed are certainly not invisible. One need only go to the

areas of high unemployment such as Northern Ireland to see their plight. We appreciate the high rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland, but I assure the hon. Member for Belfast, North that it has not arisen because of, or since, the disturbances of last summer.
When I was in Straban and Derry two or three years ago male unemployment was running at 29 per cent., this in an area in which the Ulster Government had refused to establish a new university and which the Ulster Unionists had patently neglected, despite the efforts to improve matters through the use of grants. I agree that the removal of Northern Ireland's unemployment problem would, in turn, remove the main causes of the other problems of the country.
I recall being in Derry at the time of the riots behind the barricades in the Bogside. A man in his late twenties said, "I agree with all you say, Mr. Orme, but, for heaven's sake, give us some jobs. We need 6,000 jobs in this part of Ireland." That is the crux of the problem and the stark reality of the situation in Northern Ireland. It is also the problem in other parts of Great Britain.
I acknowledge that the Government have given various benefits, such as wage-related payments and redundancy benefits, to cushion the severe effects of unemployment, effects which those who recall the days prior to the war do not want to see repeated. This cushioning has in some ways made the problem less obvious, we must not forget, however, that the country is suffering from a level of unemployment that it is intolerable. Do not let us forget the indignity caused by this problem.
We now seem to accept a high level of unemployment. It was only in July, 1966, before the Government's famous or infamous measures of 20th July of that year, that 264,000 people were unemployed. Contrast that with today's figure of 620,000; and if we add the Northern Ireland unemployment figure, we find we have close on 670.000 people unemployed in Great Britain. We cannot be complacent about this and it is not sufficient for the Government, in addition to hon. Gentlemen opposite, to ignore what really needs to be done.
Little seems to have come from the Selsdon Park conference, about which


we heard so much. The unemployed cannot take comfort from that meeting, and I trust that they will take note of what was said—or should I say, what was not said—by the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr).
Many of my hon. Friends are concerned about the philosophy that it is impossible to run a modern economic technological society without a measure of unemployment or under-employment. Such a philosophy is wrong. It has not always been Government philosophy. For example, the Labour Party's 1964 election manifesto, said
The aims are simple enough. We want full employment, a faster rate of industrial expansion and a sensible distribution of industry throughout the country.
It went on:
That can be secured only by a deliberate and massive effort to modernise the economy, change its structure and develop with all possible speed the advanced technologies and new science-based industries in which our future lies. In short, that will be achieved only by Socialist planning.
I recall the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) constantly attacking the Labour Party for being Socialist in its planning. I wish that he had some Socialist policies to attack now in relation to the problem which we are discussing. My right hon. Friend referred to smelter plants and so on, but when we envisaged the policy outlined in the 1964 manifesto we had in mind the creation of a number of science-based industries that would be publicly-owned.
Why need we be so vulnerable about the question of giving money to employers which, in many instances, they put into capital-intensive machinery instead of using it to create employment? Why should we give money in this way when we are told in reports of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries that it sometimes costs £10,000 to create one job in the development areas? Why cannot we put that money into publicly-owned industries? Why do we go to the expense of building factories, equipping them with machinery and giving the equivalent of £10 per worker when we do not take the ultimate step of controlling the plant and directing the industry, particularly in areas of high unemployment? Perhaps the Minister of Technology could address himself to this

point because it is germane to what we are discussing.
The kernel of this issue is in the Amendment which my hon. Friends and I have suggested to this Motion. In line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add:
'whilst conscious of the fact that the Opposition's policies on unemployment have always been, and are, disastrous to the nation, regrets that Her Majesty's Government have not reduced unemployment by pursing expansionist policies and by taking the most effective action to stimulate economic activity in the development areas; and calls upon the Government to accept the proposals of the Trades Union Congress for expanding the economy, and to reinforce the creation of jobs in the development areas by adopting the Labour Party policy of setting up public enterprises in those areas'.
The kernel to the problem is growth and expansion, developing our economy and allowing growth to take place in Britain. This can be done. It would utilise the energies of people at present unemployed. They could be engaged on productive work creating the wealth which the country needs. The country could have some control over that wealth, and it would not be inflationary nor destructive in itself to create that wealth. I do not believe that a 6 per cent. growth in a modern country such as Britain is beyond our capacity. It is our job to make that possible.
I emphasise the resolution carried at the Labour Party conference last October and the continuous pressure on economic development which the T.U.C. has been putting on the Government over the last two or three years. If anyone has spoken common sense on this matter, it is the T.U.C. We have only to look at the economic reviews for 1968 and 1969, which called for a measure of growth, economic development and full employment. They pointed also to ways in which the Government might deal with some of the accrued wealth which would come about when that growth had been achieved. Only by that form of growth can we get out of the stagnation which now exists.
I see that once again the workers are to be blamed for any faults which may occur, or appear to occur, in the economy. We had a very timely reference this morning from our old friend, Sir Leslie O'Brien, Governor of the Bank of England. Once again "the workers' friend"


has spoken to the nation. Last night, it is reported, he
issued a stern warning about the damage wage inflation could do to Britain's hopes of economic recovery".
I should have thought that a person of Sir Leslie's standing and knowledge would be able to countenance a policy of high wages, high investment, high productivity, without having to resort to the language of the 1920s and 1930s. His remarks were again indicative of the thinking in the City. Unfortunately, they are reflected in the Treasury at present.
The right hon. Member for Mitcham quoted Mr. Victor Feather in support of his argument about a high level of unemployment. Mr. Feather has been very forthright in that regard. We could quote a little more of what Mr. Feather has said on this question. In an interview with the industrial correspondent of Tribune only last week he said:
If the total number of unemployed people was cut by 200.000, there would be a gain of 50 million working days a year—seven times the number of days lost through strikes.
He went on to say:
We think that the growth rate should be increased from 2 to 3 per cent. in any case and that there ought then to be an extra 2 per cent. if the unemployment total is to be brought down to 400,000. I am not saying that 400,000 is a satisfactory—it should be a speedy target.
Mr. Feather went on to develop that theme. Many of my hon. Friends and I consistently since 1966, have put forward an alternative economic strategy on the whole front with reference to economic policy. We do not believe that the god of balance of payments should be considered above all other objectives. However important balance of payments may be, there are other priorities, and we have to state them. It is for the Labour Government to insist on full employment. If the Government cannot stand up for it, the Conservative Party certainly cannot.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows better perhaps than any other hon. Member, if we had growth there would be a great effect on the building industry which is so badly hit at present. Building workers would be employed to reach the housing target to which the Government are pledged. There are hospitals, schools

and factories to be built. It is no good posing the issue of high wages as detrimental to the economy. What the nurses, Health Service workers, teachers and Ford motor car workers are asking for is not out of line with what can be paid by our society. This is not an avalanche of wage claims. It would give incentive to management, create efficiency and high productivity and the wealth that is needed.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I agree with much of what the hon. Member is saying, but he has told us that his remedy would be a Socialist remedy. Is not what he has recommended, an expansion of building and so on, a Liberal remedy which was put forward back in 1929?

Mr. Orme: I have a great personal regard for the hon. Member, but I think that is a little irrelevant to the points I am making.
I do not come from a development area, but the problem of unemployment is one of concern for us all. Those who are not in development areas and do not have to face this problem should say something about it. We have a duty to do that. This issue touches the very heart strings of the Labour movement. Full employment is something we have fought for a lifetime to achieve and something which many of our forefathers thought unachievable. It seemed that we would never reach a situation in which we could say there was full employment. For a period after the war it was quite unthinkable to suggest creating unemployment. Now we seem to be slipping into a situation in which those who advise Governments, the Treasury and the City, suggest that a measure of slack in the economy in the form of unemployment is essential to development. I reject that entirely.
If we cannot find a way of managing the economy without creating unemployment we in the Labour Party are not fit to call ourselves Socialists. I believe we can find a way. The Government must change their policy. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say something this afternoon about that and about the removal of some restrictions and the effect which that would have in allowing expansion and development.


That might create some problems and difficulties for tidy-minded economists, but these are problems to be grappled with—problems of full employment, not under-employment or large-scale unemployment.
I hope that this debate, which started as some form of non-event, will come to life and that the Government will recognise that we on the back benches, although we say critical things, say them in the interests of those we represent and of the policy which we expect our Government to carry out. We consider the Tories are irrelevant on this subject, but the Labour Government are not. We demand action from our Government.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Donald Williams: I shall not try to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). We all recognise the honesty of his approach to the problem but, despite his devastating indictment of his own Government, cannot go along with his Socialist argument.
I compliment my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) on the facts and figures he has given, which are unarguable. Unemployment has reached a level which none of us can find acceptable. I do not represent a constituency with a major unemployment problem, but I fear the consequences of the Government's incompetence over the unemployment situation and their total lack of ideas on the present and future number of jobs available in this country. They seem to have lost understanding of the impact of higher education within the Western world on primary and manufacturing industries. There can be no question but that it is from this that stems the idea of capital intensive industries and modernisation which will, in a capital-intensive industry, reduce the number of jobs on the factory floor but create many other jobs in ancillary industries.
Perhaps the Minister has already recognised this, but it is strange to me that the Government have handed out large sums of taxpayers' money in incentives and investment grants to industries that do not need them, industries with not great ability and industries that are often unprofitable, and at the same time have introduced selective employment

tax, which had the primary objective of trying to move people from service industries into manufacturing industries. Selective employment tax has made many people unemployed, because the jobs were not available in manufacturing industries. Perhaps the people most affected were the older ones who had small but important jobs in service industries which made life better not only for them but for all of us.
We must recognise that there will be an ever-increasing number of jobs in the ancillary and service industries, and it is in those industries that we should be getting a greater promotion of employment. In those industries we can also seek to have a much higher standard of living because it is in them that we can obtain a greater enjoyment of living, particularly in entertainment.
Another point concerns industrial development certificates. In the West Midlands conurbation they are fairly hard to obtain. Even if one manages to get one, it takes a long time to do it. There has been, and is, encouragement to export jobs from the West Midlands to other parts. I believe that in one year 83,000 jobs were exported. That is a very good record, but I fear for the future because the new industries based on science and electronics are being encouraged to set up in the development areas. That is fair enough, because we all recognise that the development areas want more jobs, but if this goes on to a great extent in places such as the West Midlands in 20 years' time all the new industries will have gone to Scotland and the North, and in the West Midlands we shall have decaying or even dead industries. I hope that not only the Government but the Conservative Party will look well ahead in their employment policy and policy for the labour force.
Another new phenomenon is that people now talk quite freely about equal pay for equal work, but I believe that it is recognised that in service industries women with special skills will be able to earn considerably more than many men. Are we to have to look to new sociological ideas? Will women be the greater earners in many cases, and therefore the important breadwinners? Can we visualise a society in which many men will stay at home doing the chores and looking after the family? With the


growth of service industries, this is a valid point, and it could also do great damage to the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill.
The Government have no ability to deal with the unemployment problem, and show little idea of what they should be doing in the future. Their alleviation of some of the present problem by doling out large sums of taxpayers' money to the jobless does not do any good for the country and does much harm to many of the jobless, particularly when it is found that after the comfort of being sustained they cannot take on further employment. There are far too many jobless and far too few in training for jobs. The Minister of State gave a figure of, I believe, 12,000 newly trained people last year, but that is far too few. Hon. Members on both sides will agree that training boards will never train anyone by merely issuing a vast series of pamphlets.
There is one answer to the unemployment problem, and that is for the Government to get out, and get out fast, and lot a competent Administration take over.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: One becomes accustomed in the House to hearing Opposition spokesmen speaking of "What you promised and what you have done", but I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that what was said from the Front Bench opposite today was completely irrelevant.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State did not give the impression that his heart was completely in the brief he was presenting to the House. I appreciate his difficulties. I suppose that the most popular thing to say at a juncture like this is that we should expand the economy irrespective of the consequences. Many of my hon. Friends have expressed this view in the House. I ask them to bear in mind that that is exactly what the Tories did before an election. Are my hon. Friends asking us to adopt the same policies as were tried in 1963? I hope not. In 1963 they succeeded in overheating the economy.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is not my hon. Friend aware that

my hon. Friends and I have been putting forward since the package of July 1966 an alternative economic strategy? We are not asking for something new. We are asking the Government to accept rather belatedly what we have been arguing should have been done a long time ago.

Mr. Crawshaw: I accept what my hon. Friend says—he has been consistent in his arguments all the way through—but whether what he has argued for over the past three years would have succeeded in getting the balance of payments right is another matter. Whilst I am appalled at the unemployment figures, I must he quite honest and say that in our economy there have been no restrictions on how many people are employed as long as the employment has gone into the correct industries, and the majority has gone into exports. I believe that this policy has been necessary, but whether it has been carried too far is another matter.
I do not believe that the Government have been given enough credit for what they have done in this regard over the past few years. I speak as a Member for one of the Liverpool constituencies, where at present one out of 25 people is unemployed. This is an increase, and one which anyone must deprecate.
But what is the answer? We have at last succeeded after great efforts in getting the balance of payments put into credit. We are in a position where, if we were completely dishonest, the Government could take off the reins and give a booming economy for the next 12 months which might secure their return. I know that some people say that we should do that. There can be argument on that point. But I respect the leaders of my party and believe that, although they know that this is a possibility and it is a great temptation, they will not fall into it. I do not wish them to take off the reins and let the economy boom in order to be returned to office because that would be dishonest and would be a betrayal of the people. For three years now we have endured certain restrictions which have pressed heavily on many aspects of the community.
Are we, in order to sweeten the pill for an election, going to throw away all these advantages? It would be dishonest to do so. But I believe that there are other


things which should and could be done, particularly in those areas with high unemployment. Merseyside is not the worst of the development areas and let us not forget that, last year, the amount of money poured into Merseyside by the Government was about £80 million. Without that, what would the problem have been in Merseyside?
I believe that we do not concentrate sufficiently on the hard core of unemployed. It is true—although I do not accept what my hon. Friend said with quite so much enthusiasm—that there are people on the unemployment register who are there because they have a longer time to look around them because of the redundancy payments and the wage-related unemployment benefits. But it remains a fact that there are still many people who cannot get a job when they want to. We should try to concentrate on the fact that many of the hard core of the unemployed are people who have come out of work at a later stage in life. I understand that 18 per cent. of the unemployed are over the age of 55. But that is young in a working man's life. People live to 70, or 80 or 90 these days. Are we to talk about people being on the scrap heap at 55?
Where my hon. Friend's Department has failed is in not recognising the hard core of unemployment as a particular problem in the various areas. I believe that some of those people at the age of 55 are perfectly capable of being trained for a job which can bring them another 10 years of remunerative work.
This is not, of course, a one-sided problem. I attended a ports conference last Friday in Liverpool. It was stated that there is a shortage of labour on the docks in Liverpool. At the same time, dockers there are not unnaturally concerned about redundancies in relation to containerisation. But the days of the docker as a purely manual worker are going out. He is becoming a technician. Is it not possible for my hon. Friend, in discussion with these people, to say to the dockers, "Would you take another 200 or 300 people who have reached the age of 50 to 55 and train them to become dockers in this new technical age? Can you not afford another 300 in your scheme, although you have closed your books and say you will not allow more in?" I do not believe that the dockers of Liverpool

would reject it out of hand. If a plan were put to them—and it may involve only 300 in this industry and perhaps 300 in another—this sort of approach would succeed. It should certainly be made because we seem to have all the statistics of numbers but not the statistics of human beings—what sort of jobs they require and what sort they can be trained for. We must break down these statistics into the categories of work the people concerned are capable of doing.
In areas where there is above average unemployment, the Government must be flexible. About 5,000 construction workers are out of work in Merseyside. What about releasing some money for renovating some of these old down-town schools which are a disgrace to the community? I do not believe that the system of merely giving out contracts to Merseyside generally in order to alleviate unemployment necessarily works, because all that happens is that firms which now cannot get jobs done which they already have fall further back by taking on further contracts. Contracts should be given to particular firms who are prepared to take on extra people to perform these tasks. They should not just be given to firms which may fall down on the job or may take six months or a year less than others.
I am convinced that if the Department were to examine these things not as figures but as human beings, considering how these people can be employed, in Liverpool alone we could cut the number of unemployed and, what is more important, divert them into industries which would not produce things purely for home market consumption. I know that the fear of the Department and of the Treasury is that we might start a spree of buying which would raise the import bill and knock the balance of trade the other way. But the points I have indicated, if followed through, could considerably help to alleviate unemployment without that danger.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Wiggin: I have been surprised to hear hon. Members opposite saying that we have not revealed our policy on unemployment. We are, after all, debating a Motion referring to the Government's failure to deal with the problem in that


we are in the longest continuous period of high unemployment since the war, and we remind the House in our Motion of the promises made by the Prime Minister which have been unfulfilled.
I make no apology for giving a regional, if not a practically parochial, view of this matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) stated in his excellent speech that the facts are stark and simple. This is true certainly in the South-West. I hope that the Minister of Technology, coming from Bristol, will bear in mind that in the South-West for the month of January there were 42,569 jobless. This is a record for any month since the last war. As a newcomer to the area, having come from the relatively prosperous West Midlands, it is my impression that, in this as in many other things, the South-West does not seem to be getting its fair share of the cake.
I will also be utterly parochial in referring to the affairs of Weston-superMare, a typical seaside resort. In doing so, I shall no doubt draw attention to the unemployment problems of many seaside resorts. It is an important industry, although perhaps different from those we have been discussing. In January of this year the unemployment figure for Weston was 4·8 per cent. I admit that this is substantially better than many of the unfortunate cases about which we have heard. It is, however, with the exception of the bad winter of 1963, the highest percentage of the last ten years by a very long chalk.
In our last year of office there were just over 700 people unemployed in the January. This has now risen to 970. In June the unemployment rate has almost doubled and we have had 670 unemployed in what should be a prosperous seaside town. I have had pathetic letters from youngsters wanting jobs in the summer holidays but unable to get them.
My town council applied for intermediate area status. It based its claim on these facts but was refused on the grounds that although our unemployment was serious and substantially higher than the regional and national average —and remember the regional average for January was 3·2 per cent. and the national average 2·7 per cent. while ours

was 4·8 per cent.—the figures did not justify such a step. The Ministry compared our figures with that of the South-West development areas and said that they were worse off than we were. It pointed out, and this probably applies to many hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, on both sides of the House, that we have a substantially higher proportion of over-50s and over-60s than the national average. Surely these people are just as entitled to a job, just as entitled to be considered, as any others? I am highly suspicious that there will be some manipulation of the figures in future to exclude these elderly folk from the unemployment figures.

Mr. Cyril Bence: When the hon. Gentleman gives these figures for unemployment in towns such as Weston, would he confirm that there is included in them the number of professional people such as bank managers and others who have retired at 60 and registered for unemployment benefit for 18 months?

Mr. Wiggin: Yes. I understand that these figures are included and have been quite specifically given in helpful information supplied by the Minister. To reply to the hon. Gentleman, I was talking only last week to a gentleman who had retired and who was complaining, as many do, that he was unable to draw unemployment benefit under the new rules. He said that he was quite willing to work—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member suggesting that because a man has finished work as a bank manager at the age of 60 he cannot be usefully employed in society? I am not convinced by the abuse from the other side that the over-50s and over-60s should not be given an opportunity and should be excluded from these figures.
I turn now to the question of travelling to work, which concerns many dormitory areas. The Ministry has stated that an increasing willingness to travel greater distances to work is essential to the industrial economy. While I partly accept this, it would be encouraging if in some way the Government made a positive contribution to assist in this matter. Those of us in the South-West who suffer the Bristol bus service will be aware of the difficulty of getting even a regular service. The cost of travelling 18 miles to work


deters many of these people from taking jobs in more prosperous local areas.
Another matter that concerns many people is the estimates that the Ministry of Technology makes of the future job requirements in coming years. We have been told that there will be 300 jobs for men. If I ask any of my industrialists whether they will be offering more employment in the next four years, the answer is invariably "No". I would like to know how these figures are compiled. They have a substantial influence not only on the planning of the Ministry of Technology in its unemployment deliberations, but upon many other things.
Finally a word as to why I believe seaside resorts are in this trouble. Not being a development or intermediate area, Weston has to compete with areas further down the coast which have such status. Let us not belittle their benefits, but let us remember that it makes our lot more difficult. Cheap foreign travel is becoming increasingly popular, but above all else—and let us have no delusions about it—the shortness of credit and the effects of S.E.T. are the two most important factors. The other side of the House can repeat that S.E.T. has nothing to do with it, but I am not the first person on this side to raise the matter, and I shall not be the last. It is a desperately important matter about which I receive many letters. Unless something is done about this disastrous tax, the seaside resort industry as we know it will come to an end.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: Unemployment would certainly have its effect on our economic and political position, but it is the social implications that demand our urgent attention. This is perhaps why the wording of the Motion is rather depressing.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has said that we must expect this and that we are not judging the policy of the Opposition, but simply attempting to condemn the Government. This is rather churlish. There is neither comfort nor compassion. In other words, it is just political knockabout. We have had different interpretations of the statistics and it has been pointed out that in 1963 the figure was 815,000 and

that this must in some way be some sort of compensation for the fact that higher and lower figures have been put forward.
I have argued that unemployment is a social and industrial flaw, despite the fact that the Governor of the Bank of England has made some very unusual references to the rôle of unemployment in the modern economy. Certainly, his references in November, 1968, when he said that a certain amount of unemployment was essential in our economy, were equally irrelevant to the serious social problems thrown up, and, I presume, considered in this debate. One of the things which precedes the whole question of unemployment of individual groups of people is what happens to the individual.
One of the most serious implications is the rationalisation of industry. This is what causes the throw-out of large numbers of people—the mergers of organisations. We have had sufficient evidence, from the large number of mergers in the past few years, to enable us to be able to assess well before the unemployment problem emerges what ought to be done. It seems that here is a piece of background information which has not been considered in the debate, but which ought to be considered at least by the Government in their research departments and certainly by industry. At the point before rationalisation takes place, before the merger, we ought to know the serious consequence that unemployment entails.
I am aware that there are some Government surveys being undertaken in the general sphere of the labour market. There are three in particular about whose progress it would be helpful to learn. There is one on the multi-purpose household, dealing with the implications of unemployment on households, one on the characteristics of the unemployed, and one on the imbalance between the local areas.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology will be courteous enough, even if he is not able to answer specific points, to reply to those of us who are making our speeches so quickly. There have been occasions when my right hon. Friend has not done this, and the debate then becomes a peurile exercise.
More information is required. We want to know much more about the rapid


turnover of jobs. Many references have been made to this, and hon. Members on both sides of the House are not entirely satisfied with the arguments that have been put forward. The statistics can be challenged, and, therefore, an independent study needs to be undertaken. An earlier study by the then Ministry of Labour found that about 180,000 people had difficulty in finding jobs on personal grounds which, in addition to disablement or sheer laziness, included things like being an ex-convict or coloured, and these characteristics do not necessarily make a man wholly unemployable. If that figure is deducted from the overall figure certain questions are raised as to the value of issuing the statistics in the present form.
Nobody knows what would be the longterm effects of a 2½ or even a 3 per cent. jobless rate sustained for seven years. Again, I make the plea that there should be an inquiry into this question. An increased mobility of labour might be a short-term de-bottlenecking phenomenon.
My second major point is that there is not only a social flaw in unemployment, but also a statistical flaw. Some exaggerated claims and allegations are made about the monthly unemployment figures, and it is necessary to probe their accuracy. I shall not be able to do justice to this in the short time I have, but I shall perhaps be able to lead the House to one or two points of inquiry.
As with the monthly trade figures, economists and politicians watch the unemployment figures as other people watch football results or a pretty girl. It is unwise to set too much store on the way in which groups of figures for one or two months are presented. They can be influenced by a chance factor even when seasonally adjusted figures, which makes normal variations between different times of the year.
Apart from this, in recent years there has appeared a new statistical quirk in seasonably adjusted figures, which makes it necessary that they should be read with great care. During the past three years the seasonally adjusted figures have been consistently higher in summer than in winter. In 1967, 1968 and 1969 the seasonally adjusted national unemployment figures rose throughout spring to reach August and September levels

reported to be the highest since 1940. After the late summer, the figures fell more or less continuously in 1967 and 1968 right through to the next February.
This confounded a large number of prophets who talked of 1 million unemployed during the following winter. It may be that the same will happen this winter, and that the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures will fall until the middle of February and then rise in the spring. Almost certainly, the seasonally adjusted figures for the summer months are registering more than the true amount, and those in the winter months rather less.
Presumably, the seasonal variations for various reasons have become less sharp, so that the seasonal adjustment factors which were once correct are now over-adjusting the monthly figures. While the unemployment figures, naturally, receive the publicity and the knock-about, this important discrepancy is overlooked.
My third point—the regional and social policy—has been mentioned by hon. Members who represent constituencies where regional policies are in operation. I am not quite so critical of the Government's regional policies as some hon. Members are. The Government can feel some pride in their support of regional employment and social policies. Hence, although the latest unemployment figure has hit 628,000, there are no proportionately higher figures for the vulnerable parts of the country, which has been a factor in the past. It is rather extraordinary that I should have to mention this point after we have been debating this subject for 2¼ hours, but the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) did not touch on this in his opening speech and I hope that the Opposition spokesman will reply to this point.
Before the 1964 election, the Labour Party promised that it would try to abolish the harsh rule that when unemployment was high the poorest regions suffered most. Since then the Government have tried, by giving special treatment to these regions, to diminish the inequalities. I believe that there is still room for improvement.
Reference has been made to the fact that the situation in Scotland has improved. But looking back on their vast investment programme in the regions, the


Government, if they are being realistic, might well feel disappointment. This is not because the investment policy has been a failure; it is much more fundamental than that. An inducement to an industrialist to invest, say, in Wales rather than in London will work only if he wants to invest somewhere. The same applies to the industrial development certificates. They can channel an investor to a particular area only if he wants to invest. The Government's general strategy has not given companies sufficient confidence.
My last point is on the restructuring of industry, which I believe is central to the Government's view on unemployment. Has the shift succeeded? Has it begun to take up the slack? How can we get labour to move from one industry to another? Much can be done through natural wastage, the process of retirement, death and voluntary quitting, on which most of the run-down of labour in the docks, the railways and agriculture in the early 1960s was based. In the last two of those industries the rate of decline was over 4 per cent. a year.
British Railways, even with some fairly tough unions to contend with, suffered relatively little trouble with redundancy, despite their rapid contraction. For this, it helps to have a high rate of labour turnover. British Railways, where 40 per cent. of the porters and other grades may change in a year, have had less unrest over redundancy than the ports, where the rundown has been much slower. But the tradition of "once a docker, always a docker" is being forced to change. We must, therefore, convince not only management, but employees, that it is worth changing, and that there is social backing for it.
Finally, I believe on two counts that the strategy and the tactics need to be reassessed. First, a stimulus is needed, and quickly, and, therefore, I agree entirely with my hon. Friends who want to have a stimulus in the economy. I urge the Government to examine the whole question of the relaxation of purchase tax and hire-purchase restrictions. It would be absurd, even monstrous, for no action to be taken to do this until April, because April happens to coincide with a "phoney" bookkeeping date—that of the Budget. No business would operate In this way, and it may be that the Minis-

ter's advisers are perhaps not fully acquainted with this. An increase in domestic consumption is needed now. If it is done now, I do not believe that it will throw out the whole of the great economic strategy which we have been supporting over the last few years.
My second point on the specific theme of unemployment and economic tactics is that I urge the Government to institute a major inquiry on the aims and objectives of employment. It is far more important to examine the positive elements of this than to look at the negative factor of unemployment. A study of the whole area of employment, of the aims and objectives and the industrial structure, is needed. We must recognise—and I do not believe that it will come from the Conservative Party—that we must have an integrated approach to the whole question of employment which takes into account the social forces, the political needs and the economic strategy of the country.

6.9 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I always listen with interest to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman), but I am getting a little tired of hearing from the benches opposite the sort of remarks which he made at the end of his speech. The record of the Labour Party on employment, not just in this Parliament, is a very bad one, and it is about time they realised it.
Hon. Members opposite are great at talking about things. I remember asking the Prime Minister in 1966 what his estimate was of the figure of unemployment that would be acceptable to the country. I asked whether it was 400,000, 500,000, 600,000, or 700,000, and he said that he thought 400,000 would be an acceptable figure. He then went on to be very rude in trying to find whether 700,000 was the sort of figure I wanted. Nobody wants it, but the present Government have shown that over the past three years they are prepared to accept a higher level of unemployment than any party in the country have ever dared to suggest to the electorate.
I do not want to spend any more time on that point, but want to devote my remarks to the employment premium in the regions. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who has not


made a speech in the debate, has muttered several times about the 5,000 construction workers unemployed in Liverpool. That is perfectly true, but I cannot see the sense in giving, say, a brewery a premium on all the people it employs when it has probably been employing the same number of people for the last 50 years and will not because of the premium increase the number employed. Certainly, a premium to Tate and Lyle, in Liverpool, would not mean that they would increase the number of their employees. But if the money spent on premium was used to improve the infrastructure in the region this would be of real value and would bite much more surely into the hard core of the problem than is the case at present.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), to whose speeches I always listen with interest, spoke about modernising some of the old schools in Liverpool. It is surely better to use money for that purpose rather than see these premiums paid to somebody who does not increase the number of people on his payroll. I cannot understand it if premiums were paid for all additional people engaged by a firm, which might be some encouragement for the firm to expand. But I cannot see how the nation is helping to overcome problems in the development areas by paying to established organisations in those areas a premium on their present employment levels. This will not provide any incentive or encouragement to other firms to go to such an area. It is not improving the infrastructure, and this more than anything else is what is needed in these areas.
The improvement of the infrastructure of an area should include getting rid of some of the eyesores present. Because of the facts of history, these development areas contain an enormous number of old coal mining dumps, which could be got rid of. One of the greatest drawbacks in getting firms to go into such areas is that the surroundings and atmosphere are not as good as in other parts of the country. Therefore, a firm, given free choice, would sooner go to a different area.
If the Government could look at that matter—indeed, I hope that my right hon. Friend will also consider it—we could

get rid of the employment premium and use the money to improve the amenities, the infrastructure and the look of many of the development areas. In that way we should be doing a great deal more to tackle this problem than the present Government have done during the whole period of office.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: From the very nature of this debate, I must try to truncate my speech. I want to put right one erroneous impression which has been created, that apparently we in Scotland have solved the problem of unemployment. In Scotland, there are at present 92,000 unemployed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] It ill becomes hon. Gentlemen opposite to say "Hear, hear", because when they were in office in 1963 there were 163,000 unemployed in my country.
It has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the situation is a scandal. It was certainly a scandal that the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) came to the Dispatch Box to talk on unemployment but did not put forward a single constructive suggestion as to how the Opposition would tackle the problem. The screaming headlines we read yesterday about Selsdon Park seem to have been negatived today by arguments put forward by the Opposition in this Motion of censure on the Government. One hon. Gentleman opposite spoke about the comfort of unemployment.
When hon. Members opposite talk about unemployment it shows that they do not know what it means to the people who find themselves unemployed. We have been told of the problems in one constituency of finding jobs for retired bank managers. It is an insult to the intelligence of hon. Members that such a matter should be raised in this debate.
The problem in my constituency is that honourable, decent, respectable miners are finding themselves, at the age of 50 and over, on the scrapheap probably for the rest of their lives. To this extent I am very critical of the Government's operations. Of course, I appreciate their problems. I fought the 1966 election on the basis not of less but off more Government intervention. I wanted Westminster to intervene because I realised that the problem of unemployment in Scotland


could not be solved by laissez faire policies and by private enterprise.
I suspect that the policy of the party opposite will be to try to tell the people at the next election that private enterprise will solve employment problems in the country. Last night, I attended a mass meeting in my constituency at which we talked about unemployment and pensions. I have news for hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Selsdon Park conference, with the so-called policies that emerged, will not deceive the people of Scotland as an answer to solving the problems of unemployment and pensions.
We are happy in Scotland to have lost some jobs in mining where the conditions were deplorable. I have repeatedly questioned my right hon. Friend about these matters. I believe that a great error has been committed in Scotland. We are running down the mining industry too fast. We will regret it when the nation finds that it requires coal and has no miners to dig it.
We are also pleased to lose domestic servants in Scotland. The number of domestic servants has decreased by 8,800 since 1964. Our lads and lasses prefer to work in offices or in the electronic engineering industry rather than in domestic service. It is a good thing for some people to do their own domestic work, and that our young people should go into much more productive jobs.
I will keep faith with Mr. Speaker's desire that speeches should be brief. I should like to have spoken a great deal longer, but at least my contribution has been to tell the Government that we are dissatisfied on the question of unemployment at present, and to indict the Opposition for their humbug and hypocrisy in not bringing forward any policies to deal with unemployment.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Mr. Speaker, is it not to be regretted, in view of the Chair's known attitude to minorities in the House, that a debate on such a fundamental matter as this has gone without having heard the voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) or myself to speak for Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Speaker: It is to be regretted, but the Chair cannot get a quart into a pint pot.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: In our Motion we deplore the longest period of high unemployment since the war and we condemn the Government because of assurances which they previously gave on this subject.
In the debate two facts have stood out starkly and they are matters of grave concern to both sides of the House. The first is that in 29 of the last 30 months the figure for registered unemployed has stood at more than 500,000. Secondly, the January figures which have been recently released show a very sharp rise and this is disquieting. We are still living through the longest continuous period of unemployment for many years and that is the deplorable factor in the present situation.
Hon. Members have pointed to temporary high figures in February, 1963, when there were exceptionally bad weather conditions. That was the one month when, in Scotland, the figure stood at 136,000 which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and other hon. Members. It was in one month. In response to that and, in particular, to the apparent challenge of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), I point out that the postwar record for high figures is held by the Labour Government of 1947 where, again, in the month of February, in bad weather and a fuel crisis, the figures were approaching 2 million—1,874,000.
Let me say straight away that these short periods of high unemployment for special reasons have occurred under both Conservative and Labour Governments. But that is not the issue before us today. It is the protracted period of grim stagnation and continuously high unemployment with which we are concerned.

Mr. Manuel: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us what he intends to do about it.

Mr. Campbell: It is entirely contrary to the Government's forecasts and assurances. The Prime Minister, on 20th July, 1966—and if hon. Members will look at the Motion they will see this point—

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

Mr. Campbell: I will give way in a moment.
The Prime Minister said in his statement on 20th July, 1966—and this was one of the most important statements for the economy—
If the figure of unemployment were, after all the reabsorption, after all the redeployment, and after the measures for regional distribution, to rise to a figure between 1½ and 2 per cent., I do not believe that the House as a whole would consider that unacceptable."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 646–7.]
If it had stayed below 2 per cent. then I am sure that the House would have considered it to be reasonably acceptable. But since 1966 the unemployment rate has averaged 2·4 per cent.—nearly 2½ per cent.—and that means that about 100,000 more people have been out of work than if the Prime Minister's top figure of 2 per cent. had been the average.
Last year, the total of registered unemployed was for five months 2·5 per cent. and for two months 2·6 per cent. and now it has risen to 2·7 per cent. If we consider the wholly unemployed and not the temporarily out of work, and exclude school leavers and take the figures seasonally adjusted, we still find that in every month of 1969 the figure was running at over 2 per cent.
Those words of the Prime Minister were thoroughly and inexcusably misleading, as subsequent events have shown. The figures tell plainly the story of the last three years. Most of us know, also, that the figures represent painful chapters in the lives of many families, where inability to get work brings frustration and hardship and, over a long period, can lead to a bitter sense of being expendable and to flagging hopes and even to despair.
When dealing with men's livelihoods it is highly irresponsible to hold out expectations which are simply guesses which the Government cannot fulfil.
I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has arrived. There has been no Treasury Minister on the Bench up to now and this has been criticised by his own side of the House. The Chancellor has come in at the right moment, because I am coming to devaluation.
The Government could well say that devaluation altered the Prime Minister's statement in July, 1966. But in his broadcast on devaluation on 19th November,

1967, the Prime Minister was still saying the same sort of thing. He said:
Many industries and firms which are now working below capacity will have a chance to get into full production. This means more work, more jobs in the development areas, because we intend to be ruthless in diverting new enterprise to those areas.
This was the same notorious broadcast in which the Prime Minister said that devaluation "does not mean that the £ in your pocket has been devalued".
Again, this statement was thoroughly misleading, because what has happened since has been a net loss of jobs in all the development areas.

Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in March, 1959, when his Government were in power, the level of unemployment in Liverpool was precisely 29,000—or 4 per cent.? The level of unemployment now is 29,000—or 4 per cent. Obviously, we have not entirely solved the problem. Could the hon. Gentleman now tell the House what his side intends to do to solve the unemployment problem, because up to now we have not had one concrete proposal from the Opposition and it seems to me that we are not likely to get one.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a time before some projects were brought to his area. I think that, even though he is being selective with his figures, the figures seem to come out at much the same.
Now I turn to 1970. If the hon. Gentleman will read the Motion he will see that we are considering what has been happening in the past three years against what the Government said would happen.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I declare my interest in that I was the President of the National Association of Manufacturers on Merseyside in 1959, the year to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was referring. Would my hon. Friend reply that between 1959 and 1963 the Tory Party took Ford into Halewood, on Merseyside. Are the Labour Government proposing something equivalent in the next three years?

Mr. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for confirming the answer I gave.
We come to 1970, for which there were forecasts in the ill-fated National Plan.


In the section on "Labour and Manpower" the forecast was very different from the problem which now faces us. It was that we should have to go round finding people to fill the many jobs. A gap, a shortfall, a manpower gap of great size was foreseen. That was issued five months before the last General Election. It certainly succeeded in diverting attention away from the real problems which faced us then and which are still facing us now.
Some of my constituents were particularly interested and took very seriously this problem which was posed of finding these extra persons to fill the jobs. Looking at the National Plan one finds the proposals put forward on page 38:
It may be concluded that, in addition to the possible reduction of unemployment by some 50,000, some 100,000–200,000 extra people might be drawn into the United Kingdom labour force if a major effort were made to raise activity rates in the less prosperous regions.
It went on:
… in all regions there are some people, particularly among older people and married women, who may not be registered as unemployed but would welcome the opportunity of a job. Employers will have to be ready to take the steps needed to make use of this additional source of labour.
The suggestion was that employers would have to be hunting around for people not even on the register to fill the jobs. Was this a genuine forecast which went hopelessly wrong or was it a deliberate red herring before the election?
The National Plan was publicly buried without ceremony in November, 1966, by the present Foreign Secretary; and the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) now seems to be getting his own back by doing his best to wreck the Foreign Secretary's diplomacy in the Middle East. As regards those forecasts, precisely the opposite has been happening. Instead of more jobs in 1970, there has been a large net reduction in the number of jobs available particularly in the development areas.
I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland has arrived. During the debate on 10th December we discussed the net loss of 67,000 jobs in Scotland in three years between December, 1965, and December, 1968. The right hon. Gentleman, who wound up the debate on that occasion, failed completely to

answer or explain his incredible miscalculations in his own White Paper on the Scottish economy. In his winding-up speech the right hon. Gentleman refused to give way to anyone on this side of the House, and that is always a sign that he is in a corner and on weak ground.
To assess the enormity of the right hon. Gentleman's misleading statements, and the wide difference between word and action, one must recall that in 1964 his articles and speeches said that Labour aimed at creating 40,000 new jobs a year in Scotland. But that was the number of jobs being created in Scotland at that time. It is recorded in the same White Paper that from 1960 to 1964 the average number of new jobs per year was more than 39,000.
A little over a year later, when the right hon. Gentleman was in office, he produced a plan involving the creation of only 21,000 jobs a year for six years, almost half what he had been suggesting. Can cynicism be carried any further than that? To advocate in opposition the rate which at that time was being achieved, and a year later, in office, to produce a plan for only half as much, requires the shameless doubletalk and expediency which we have come to expect from the Front Bench opposite. It was the Prime Minister who was reported as having said that in politics a week is a long time. For the Secretary of State for Scotland, a year is clearly an eternity.
The Government have been pleading that the ratio has improved in Scotland, that the ratio of unemployed in Scotland compared with England is better than it was, but both figures are worse. It is not much comfort to someone who has a cold to be told that the other fellow's cold is three times as bad, and later, when he gets pneumonia, to be told that the other fellow's pneumonia is only twice as bad. That is what the Government are trying to say.
The figures recently released for Scotland are especially disturbing. They show a rise of more than 11,000, from 3·7 to 4·4 per cent. The most disturbing factor is the small proportion who are temporarily out of work, only 3 per cent. of the total. This means that the large majority do not have jobs to return to after the bad weather or other temporary stoppages.
We also know that in Scotland more than 2,000 more jobs are likely to be lost because of two projects which are disappearing. Rolls-Royce is being run down, and the Royal Ordnance factory at Alexandria is closing. This is a Government responsibility, because it comes from the indefinite suspension of the manufacturer of the Mark 24 torpedo, which was to have been the main armament of the Royal Navy, and it is having a serious effect on that part of Scotland.
We cannot consider unemployment in Scotland without relating it to emigration. Last Thursday, a newspaper in Scotland published what was ostensibly an extract from a report to the Secretary of State by a study group. From Questions which the right hon. Gentleman answered yesterday, it is clear that no publication was authorised, but, as quotations are given in that newspaper as from the report, we must assume that they are correct. It is extremely disquieting that they confirm that it is the young and vigorous who are leaving Scotland, and that a large proportion of those who are coming in are retired and elderly.

Mrs. Ewing: Mrs. Ewing rose—

Mr. Campbell: I cannot give way, because I have not been left much time in which to make my speech.
That newspaper report shows that net figures themselves tell only part of the gory, and it confirms what many of us suspected, I shall not say it is completely new to us. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will publish the report, instead of saying that this appearance of extracts was not authorised. The fact remains that the figures from net emigration from Scotland in 1966 and 1967 show that they were the worst two years since the war.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) spoke about Northern Ireland and described the high and regrettable level of unemployment there. He pointed out that this was due not only to economic reasons, but to political disturbances.
In the development areas, one of the troubles has been the failure of the methods used by the Government in regional development. They are not being effective. The Government and their sup-

porters have boasted about the amount of money being spent. Certainly, a lot of money is being spent, but hon. Members on both sides of the House have recently expressed doubts about the methods being adopted by the Government.
This has been clear at Question Time, and it was clear during the debate a few days ago on public expenditure. At least three hon Member on the benches opposite today expressed doubts about the effectiveness of investment grants and other measures being used in the development areas. We understand that the Government themselves are now reviewing the system, but they are not prepared to make any announcement today.
When the Minister of State was asked by one of his hon. Friends to tell us what the Government were proposing to do, he refused to answer, saying that he had not come here to make a Budget speech. I am not here to make a speech about a Conservative Budget, but I can say that when we are in office one thing that will disappear from the regional development system is the S.E.T.
Hon. Members have also referred to the importance of mobility, training, and retraining. I can only touch on that now. My visits in Scotland to industrial training programmes, including Government training centres and industry's own programmes, confirm my view that they will have an important part to play in solving the problems, but they raise other problems. The Minister of State said today that the Government were arranging for unemployed people to be trained in engineering skills. This is very interesting, but has he obtained the consent of the trade unions to the employment of such men after they have been trained? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer that.
The Minister of State tried to excuse the whole of the Government's economic policy by saying that they had achieved a balance of payments surplus in 1969. That was his only argument. He spoke as though that had never been done before. Let him remember that in nine out of the 13 years when the Conservatives were in office there was a surplus in the balance of payments. It was normal in our time. It appears that now it happens only once in every five years.
and then with the stagnation which we have had to suffer in the meantime.
The fact remains that during 29 out of the last 30 months unemployment has stood at more than half a million. The Government have been guilty of the same failure here as they have been in housing, as was clearly shown by this side during the debate last week. They have deliberately given assurances and raised expectations in the country which they have been unable to honour, and we therefore roundly condemn them.

6.40 p.m.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I hope that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) will not think me offensive when I say that we have been disappointed by the contributions made from the Opposition Front Bench in this debate, because sense cannot be made of a major element in the economic situation simply by being guided by the Press clipping service, however good, provided by Conservative Central Office.
What is required, and what has been lacking from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), who began with a most unjustified attack on my right hon. Friend's courage, which I believe to be wholly beyond dispute, is a recognition that the regional considerations here are the dominant ones, as I shall seek to show. There has been practically no analysis and hardly a word about them.
May I begin, because this has quite properly been a constituency occasion for many hon. Members, by dealing with all the points that they raised before coming to the central question.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) identified the economic background against which the political difficulties were being played out in Northern Ireland. I have recently met Mr. Bradford, who came to London on a mission, to discuss the matter. I have a departmental interest in that we have provided support for Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers, and reconstruction for Shorts is still our policy at the right moment. We have been engaged in direct partnership with industry in Ulster, to meet the very point the hon. Gentleman raised. I wish that he would address some of his remarks to those of his col-

leagues who doubt whether the Government really ought to engage, as he and I evidently believe they should, in this type of relationship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger), which will be in an intermediate area under the Local Employment Act, raised a key question about the relationship of this problem to changes in technology. I am glad to take the opportunity of saying what I have often said outside the House—that the white heat of technological revolution is what happens to a man when his job, because the process by which he earns his living is replaced by a new process, disappears. The white heat of technological revolution is not a Minister going round with a blow lamp adjusting the industrial structure; it is the pain and hardship which come to people when they have to change their jobs, and that is a problem not often referred to by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Heffer: While I accept the point that my right hon. Friend is making, would he not agree that this can hardly be equated with the situation in the building industry, where we have 125,000 unemployed, and areas like Liverpool, with over 5,000 building operatives unemployed?

Mr. Benn: I said I would begin by trying to deal with every point raised by hon. Members. I will come to the general argument. I know my hon. Friend's point of view very well. But the point I have just made does bear on what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) said.
The real problem of the North is that of older industries, notably coal, running down in the face of oncoming fuel industries, gas and nuclear power, and it is against this background that action taken to deal with unemployment has to be measured, and it was for this reason that the special development areas were introduced.

Mr. George Jeger: Could not my right hon. Friend stop talking about full employment, then?

Mr. Benn: If the objective of the Government is made very difficult as a result of technological and industrial change,


that is not, in my view, a reason for abandoning the objective, which my hon. Friend and I share in common.
I want to deal, also, with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who made the case for public enterprise dealing with this problem. I would remind him that there is a record here—the Giro public enterprise situated in Bootle, the decision to establish Dounreay, in Scotland, and to go ahead there with the first breeder reactor.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Who took that decision?

Mr. Benn: I am talking about public enterprise and about the decision on the full programme on the fast breeder reactor, now announced.

Mr. MacArthur: Which Government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself.

Mr. Benn: Then there is the bus factory in Cumberland, a mixture of the National Bus Company and Leyland, the smelters, the nuclear fuel company, legislation for which is shortly to be brought before the House, which will mean greater employment in Cumberland, Merseyside and Dumfriesshire. So I hope that the hon. Member will not think we are not conscious of the rôle public enterprise may play.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), in a thoughtful speech, raised the problem of the older male worker. This is very serious, especially in the G.E.C. factory which I went round with him. When employment falls below the level that one wants to see in any area, it is the older male worker who tends to be affected. In the light of his experience in Liverpool my hon. Friend will realise that our decision not to deschedule Merseyside was right and was a practical approach to the problem.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) asked me to make forecasts, but I cannot do so because the level of employment or unemployment is dictated by the general level of economic activity and, above all, by the extent to which goods can find a market. This is the determining factor

in the level of activity, particularly in export markets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) spoke about the need for confidence, and I want to come back to this in the light of the proposed changes which the party opposite apparently intends to introduce into our regional policy. As to the need for reexamining our policies on industrial structure, the House will know that I have begun a series of discussions not only with firms, but with trade unions, on our industrial policies.
I have two final points before I come to the central question of the debate. One is that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) put an argument about R.E.P. He knows that we are committed for a seven-year period, and the reason we accepted that commitment was that nothing was more calculated to destroy the efficacy of regional incentives than changing them all the time. All these policies can properly be the subject of discussion. That is why we published the R.E.P. as a Green Paper. Whatever the merit of a change may be, I very much hope that the leaders of the parties opposite, and the hon. Gentleman himself, will not speak about regional incentives as if it is possible to change them just like that when, in fact, the effect of this policy takes some time to come through.
If the firms which the Government are trying to persuade to move to development areas were to conclude that R.E.P. would be phased out, or that investment grants could not be relied upon, we should very soon see the effect on many international companies that might otherwise come here. But I will come back to this point later on.
I have now dealt, I think, with almost every point raised by every hon. Member except that by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who spoke about the coal industry. He would, I know, recognise that the Government have provided very substantial financial help to cushion that industry. He will also know that, fortunately, the rate of rundown, which was at an intolerable level in recent years, is beginning to flatten out. The human implications of this are a problem to which the Government have devoted sensitive and realistic


attention, and of course, substantial sums of public money.
The vacuum in this debate was that the party opposite did not consider this against the economic background. There was no reference to the fact that during the period in which these changes in the level of activity have occurred we have secured a switch in resources from a deficit running at the £750 million level to the present strong surplus, which is now the subject of considerable favourable comment here and abroad. To speak about the level of employment or unemployment without putting it against that background destroys the validity of the arguments that were used.
It is true that the use of demand management has been a factor in bringing about these changes. But, on this issue, one would not expect to find a criticism from the party opposite. I was re-reading the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in the debate on 22nd April, 1966, during which he said:
We believe that it is the job of Government to abate the fever, the overheating, which exists in some parts of the economy, and of which the Minister cannot be unaware."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1966; Vol. 727, c. 220.]
Anyone who has read or attended economic debates over the years knows that the pressure for what was called abating the fever, or lifting the pressure, was put continually by the party opposite.
I wanted to be sure that I did not do the right hon. Gentleman an injustice. In his recent famous speech, he said:
Industry has not this century had the right climate for efficiency. Between the wars there was too little demand. Since the war there has been until recently, as Labour has now recognised, a shade too much demand.
What does that mean, other than that when he speaks outside this House he sees the rôle and relevance of demand management as part of our balance of payments recovery?
My hon. Friends do not share that view. There have been two quite different debates, the first of them with a silent Opposition saying nothing about economic policy, and the other with my hon. Friends talking, in a more real debate,

about whether the level of economic activity could have been higher. [Laughter.]

Mr. Orme: It is not funny, either.

Mr. Benn: I say a more real debate because my hon. Friends have the courtesy to put forward alternative policies.
If they are disappointed that the level of activity has not been as high as they would like, I suggest that they look at the years 1959–60 and 1963–64, when the level of growth ran at about 5 per cent. per year. In the first case, there was an adverse balance of payments of £400 million and, in the second, of £500 million. The reason the Government have pursued the policies that we have is that we believed that the real long-term threat to employment would be a consistent and persistent balance of payments problem.
There has been a real switch of resources. It was necessary, it has occurred, and, when one looks ahead, one can see prospects for growth. They are conditioned by the extent to which the export-led boom can continue to be effective. It is not for me today, even if I were able to do it, to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget speech. There is a meeting of the National Economic Development Council tomorrow to consider "The Task Ahead" and to report, and there will be the normal statements by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget debate. However, no one can now doubt that there is a recovery in consumption, a continuing rise in exports and, contrary to what is said by many right hon. and hon. Members opposite, a substantial forecast rise in investment.
I did not see the Leader of the Opposition on television last night, but I believe that he made a reference to manufacturing investment. I looked up the figures, and I found that manufacturing investment at constant prices under this Government has never fallen below the highest Tory figure. In only one year has it actually fallen, and then by only £41 million compared with £296 million in 1962–63. The lowest year was that in which the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) began his term of office as Secretary of State for Regional Industry, Employment and Trade.

Sir K. Joseph: Do not the figures imply that, as a proportion of G.N.P.,


manufacturing investment has been lower than in the Tory years?

Mr. Benn: It depends how one uses the figures. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that not only has there been a 10 per cent. rise in manufacturing investment over the last 12 months, to the best estimate that we can make, but a forecast of a 10 per cent. rise in the forthcoming period, which is well above any change that there might be as a proportion of G.N.P.
It is not good enough for the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to criticise the level of manufacturing investment and suggest by sleight of hand to the electorate that, by substantial savings to be got in some way out of incentives to investment, they will be able to finance a general reduction of taxation.
I want now to give some slightly more analytical passages about the reasons for the changes in the level of employment, although I recognise that demand management has played a large part in it. One is the change to which I referred earlier, the rundown of old industries and the development of new ones.
We think it to be part of the function of government that it should be ready to intervene to reduce or cushion the effect of rundown, as we have with coal and shipbuilding and, at the same time, to accelerate the development of new industries, as we have done with aircraft, computers and electronics. When I read the statements of the party opposite, I find a general inclination and drift of argument that the Government should not engage at all in the business of trying to deal with the mis-match due to the shift in emphasis from old to new. It would have been a tragedy in the coal-mining industry if it had been in private hands, or if the Government had not taken the measures that they did. In shipbuilding, a major tragedy would have occurred.
Nothing was said by the party opposite about its attitude to the existing policies, let alone new policies. My right hon. Friend dealt with the mismatch in skills and retraining. There is the regional mis-match, the problem of the development areas and the inter-mediate areas that we have assisted—

Mrs. Ewing: Tell us about emigration.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady, unfortunately, failed to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, and I am under pressure of time. There are one or two further points that I wish to make. I cannot give way to her now.
One can look at the list of measures taken by the Government to help development areas, whether it be the expansion of their boundaries, the discrimination in investment grants, R.E.P., the development of tourism, the intermediate area support—[An HON. MEMBER: "S.E.T.?"] One can look at the training provisions, the machinery grants provisions, the key worker transfer, the housing arrangements, the infrastructure support, the derelict land grants, the Government contracts, the public works, and the various policies adopted by the Government.
One is bound to ask what changes the party opposite claims that it will make in this pattern of support. If, after Selsdon Park, there is no indication of the views of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, either there is no saving to be made from this area of support or, alternatively, this is the place where they believe that savings can be made.
Finally, I want to try to contrast what is said by the Opposition on the state of our economy with what is said by some commentators. For this purpose I should like to quote from an article that appeared in an American magazine, as follows:
'The start of the 1970s is an appropriate time to answer critics at home and abroad who claim that after years of declining world power and incessant balance of payment crises Britain stands today bereft of talent, hope, courage and cash.
In fact, there is another side to this picture. It is more valid to forecast an impending revival of our fortunes, to prophesy a British renaissance in the 1970s that will win us an exciting place in the world.
I would not normally quote the Reader's Digest as a sources of my authority. But that article was written by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). I give him full marks for having written and said things abroad about the state of Britain today, in marked contrast with what is said by many Opposition leaders when they travel abroad.
But unemployment cannot be separated from the general economic recovery programme which we have carried through.


Unless the Opposition clearly state how they would deal with the problem, it is impossible for us not to conclude that many of the victims who would suffer as a result of their much publicised economy drive would actually come from among those whose cause they have sought so unsuccessfully to champion today.

Question put:—
That this House deploring the fact that there has now been the longest continuous period of high unemployment since the war, condemns Her Majesty's Government for failing to honour the assurances given by the Prime Minister that there would be no general rise in unemployment.

The House divided:Ayes 246, Noes 309.

Division No. 57.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Astor, John
Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert


Awdry, Daniel
Fisher, Nigel
Lubbock, Eric


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fortescue, Tim
Mac Arthur, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Foster, Sir John
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fry, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Batsford, Brian
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain



Gibson-Watt, David



Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McMaster, Stanley


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Glyn, Sir Richard
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Grant, Anthony
Marten, Neil


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Maude, Angus


Blaker, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Brewis, John
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Bromley- Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morran-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bryan, Paul
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hastings, Stephen
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hawkins, Paul
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hay, John
Murton, Oscar


Burden, F. A.
Heald, Rt, Hon. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Neave, Airey


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Heseltine, Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hill, J. E. B.
Nut, John


Channon, H. P. G.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley


Chataway, Christopher
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Clegg, Walter
Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neil
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cordle, John
Hunt, John
Pardoe, John


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Iremonger, T. L.
Peel, John


Crouch, David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, John


Crowder, F. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pink, R. Bonner


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pounder, Rafton


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dance, James
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Francis


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dean, Paul
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dodds Parker, Douglas
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Doughty, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kitson, Timothy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lambton, Viscount
Robson Brown, Sir William


Eden, Sir John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lane, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)




Royle, Anthony
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Ward, Dame Irene


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Weather ill, Bernard


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Temple, John M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Wiggin, A. W.


Sharpies, Richard
Tilney, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Silvester, Frederick
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Winstanley, Dr. M, P.


Sinclair, Sir George
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Woodnutt, Mark


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Waddington, David
Worsley, Marcus


Speed, Keith
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Wright, Esmond


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Younger, Hn. George


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek



Summers, Sir Spencer
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tapsell, Peter
Walters, Dennis
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)
Mr. Jasper More




NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hobden, Dennis


Albu, Austen
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Horner, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Alldritt, Walter
Delargy, Hugh
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Allen, Scholefield
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Anderson, Donald
Dempsey, James
Howie, W.


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Dewar, Donald
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Ashley, Jack
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Huckfield, Leslie


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Dickens, James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dobson, Ray
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Driberg, Tom
Hunter, Adam


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunn, James A.
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur


Barnes, Michael
Dunnett, Jack
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)



Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)



Barnett, Joel
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Baxter, William
Eadie, Alex
Janner, Sir Barnett


Beaney, Alan
Edelman, Maurice
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bence, Cyril
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ellis, John
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bidwell, Sydney
English, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Binns, John
Ennals, David
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Blackburn, F.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Booth, Albert
Finch, Harold
Judd, Frank


Boston, Terence
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kenyon, Clifford


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Boyden, James
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirEric (lslington, E.)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lawson, George


Brooks, Edwin
Foley, Maurice
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ford, Ben
Lee, John (Reading)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Forrester, John
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)


Buchan, Norman
Fowler, Gerry
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)



Freeson, Reginald



Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lipton, Marcus


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gardner, Tony
Lomas, Kenneth


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Garrett, W. E.
Loughlin, Charles


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David
Luard, Evan


Carmichael, Neil
Colding, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mabon, Or. J. Dickson


Chapman, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McBride, Neil


Coe, Denis
Gregory, Arnold
McCann, John


Coleman, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacColl, James


Concannon, J. D.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
MacDermot, Niall


Conlan, Bernard
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Macdonald, A. H.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McElhone, Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael


Crawshaw, Richard
Hannan, William
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Cronin, John
Harper, Joseph
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackie, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Haseldine, Norman
Mackintosh, John P.


Dalyell, Tam
Hattersley, Roy
Maclennan, Robert


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hazell, Bert
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Heffer, Eric S.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Henig, Stanley
MacPherson, Malcolm


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hilton, W. S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)







Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Park, Trevor
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Mallalieu,.J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Manuel, Archie
Pavitt, Laurence
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mapp, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Marks, Kenneth
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Swain, Thomas


Marquand, David
Pentland, Norman
Taverne, Dick


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Maxwell, Robert
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Thornton, Ernest


Mayhew, Christopher
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Tomney, Frank


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Probert, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael


Mendelson, John
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Urwin, T. W.


Mikardo, Ian
Randall, Harry
Varley, Eric G.


Millan, Bruce
Rankin, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rees, Merlyn
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Richard, Ivor
Wallace, George


Molloy, William
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Moonman, Eric
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Weitzman, David


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Whitaker, Ben


Moyle, Roland
Roebuck, Roy
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Whitlock, William


Murray, Albert
Rose, Paul
Wilkins, W. A.


Neal, Harold
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Newens, Stan
Ryan, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ogden, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


O'Halloran, Michael
Sheldon, Robert
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


O'Malley, Brian
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Oram, Bert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Orbach, Maurice
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Orme, Stanley
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Winnick, David


Oswald, Thomas
Silverman, Julius
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Skeffington, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Padley, Walter
Slater, Joseph



Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Paget, R. T.
Snow, Julian
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. William Hamling.


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshirs, W.)

Orders of the Day — SMOKELESS ZONES AND POLLUTION

Mr. Speaker: We now begin the second of two short debates. I appealed successfully at the start of the last one for brief speeches; I make the same appeal now.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Chataway: I beg to move.
That this House deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to ensure the supplies of smokeless fuel necessary to implement the clean air policy, particularly in view of the stress laid on environmental pollution in recent Ministerial speeches.
In New York on Monday of last week, the Prime Minister said:
The British people today offer you, the American people, a new special relationship.
As the Prime Minister went on, a no doubt grateful American people learned that the new special relationship was to help them with, among other things, the problems of pollution; in his words, "the problems of pollution of the air we breathe". I have no evidence whether or not the great majority of Americans were over-impressed by this offer of the Prime Minister, but they would surely have been less impressed had he mentioned that the highly successful clean air policy which his Government had inherited was even then being brought to a grinding halt.
The Ministry of Housing was at that moment, on Monday of last week, arranging not only to delay for over a year the introduction of new smokeless zones, but to suspend existing smokeless zones. After a period of years in which, apparently, there was precious little evidence of any communication between the Ministry of Technology and either its predecessor, the Ministry of Power, on the one hand, or the Ministry of Housing on the other, after a number of months in which there appears to have been very little attempt at co-ordination by the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, the clean air policy virtually collapsed.
Therefore, at the very moment that the Prime Minister was offering this special relationship on pollution, his own Government were starting to embark on an exercise in pollution which, quantita-

tively, makes the "Torrey Canyon" incident look like a minor mishap.
The setback is very serious in health and environmental terms. It will be clear that the shortage of smokeless fuel was entirely foreseeable and widely predicted, and that the whole crisis appears to have been caused by a series of muddles and by a straight lack of interest by the Government Departments concerned. That lack of interest contrasts strangely with the recent spate of high-flown rhetoric, not only from the Prime Minister but from other Ministers, on the subject of the environment.
But, first, I acknowledge that, in parts of this country at least, we have been extremely fortunate in the results of the clean air policy and the legislation which we have enjoyed over the past decade and a half. There was a useful addition only last year to the main Act in a Private Member's Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell). I am glad to pay tribute to his contribution, but the prime credit for the basic 1956 Act goes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who was Minister at the time, to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who played a very big part in bringing that Bill forward, and, of course, to Sir Hugh Beaver who was the chairman of the committee which reported on the matter.
The legislation had a spectacular success, as the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology, said to the National Clean Air Society last October. He stated that "the sun now shines in London as brightly as in the depths of the countryside". But the Minister of State appeared to be blissfully unaware at the time—as I wondered whether the Secretary of State was at Question Time today —of the effects of the shortage which was then brewing. But as long ago as last October he recognised that we had still a great way to go before the North was as clear as the South.
The nature of the improvement in London was accurately measured by the Director of the Medical Research Council's air pollution unit, Dr. P. J. Lawther, when he estimated that in the last 10 years smoke concentrations had


declined to less than one-fifth of their former values and that in recent winters there had been few days of high pollution. He went on to say that the effect of the Clean Air Act on daily deaths and hospital admissions in London was substantial and that the response of bronchitic patients to pollution was also tending to decline.
These are all results of the 1956 Act, and they contrast with the position before 1956. For example, hon. Members may recall the smog of December, 1952, which, in a few days, led to an increase in deaths of 4,000 in the Greater London area alone. The Clean Air Act made history in two ways: first, it subjected the domestic fireplace to direct positive control for the first time, and, second, it meant that the United Kingdom was the first country to introduce a provision of that sort into its legislation. That Measure may fairly be regarded as the most important British anti-pollution Act since the war.
It was clear by last year that the clean air programme was slowing down. Whatever else caused the present shortage of smokeless fuel, it certainly was not that the Government were making faster progress than was expected; that they were forcing local authorities along at breakneck speed. Far from it. On 23rd September last—this was before the shortage of smokeless fuel—The Times spoke of a "deplorable cut" in the advance of smoke control, and commented:
In spite of the obvious good to come out of it all, our smoke control programme has slowed down in recent months, and the reason is lack of money. By the end of March this year, only 308 new smoke control areas had come into existence in the United Kingdom over the previous 12 months, 47 fewer than the year before…. Current economic conditions are largely to blame. Local authorities, for example, simply do not have the funds to continue making grant-assisted changeovers to the new solid smokeless-fuel burning appliances…
By last year, therefore, the steam was running out of the programme, but not because the job had been done. Only half the designated black areas were effectively covered, and a recent Ministry of Technology estimate of the cost of polluted air was £300 million. That contrasted with an estimate of £250 million at the time of the Beaver Committee's Report. I admit that the recent estimate was in

the depreciated currency of 1970, but a great deal remained to be done, despite the Government's losing interest in the matter.
We come to the present situation, in which the clean air policy has not only been ground to a complete halt—in that the creation of new smokeless zones is Being deferred until after April, 1971—but the Government are now taking steps substantially to increase the country's levels of air pollution. Already four smokeless zones have been suspended, and I understand that at least one other is in the process of being suspended by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I trust that the Minister of State will give more information on this topic.
Against this background, a number of questions need answering. How long does the Minister now believe these suspensions will last? They are initially only for this winter, but is it believed that it will be necessary to suspend them again next winter? In how many more zones is it expected that suspensions will occur? What is the position of the smoke control Orders that have already been confirmed?
I understand that 152 smoke control orders have already been confirmed and that they are due to come into operation during 1970. I gather that they will cover nearly 300,000 premises. On 31st December of last year there were another 78 smoke control orders before the Minister, covering nearly another 100,000 premises, and most of those were dated to come into effect in 1970.
The Solid Smokeless Fuels Federation has asked local authorities to delay the implementation of those orders because it believes that if they are implemented and smokeless fuel is available in certain areas, it will be procured in those areas only at the expense of other areas, where there will be a comparable shortage.
I understand that a number of local authorities, on being approached by the Federation, have so far refused to delay the date of implementation. They take the view, fairly understandably in the circumstances, that if the Minister has approved their orders it must be all right for them to go ahead, and many of them are, naturally, anxious to make progress. I understand that the Federation has


already asked whether the Minister of Housing and Local Government will advise delay of these orders.
I hope that it will not for a moment be suggested by the Minister that this is another instance of the Government having been blown off course by totally unforeseeable extraneous circumstances. We shall no doubt be told that there has been a boom in world steel production and that the demand for coke has been great. It may be said that it has been due to the Gas Council's run-down in the production of coke; but that has not occurred suddenly, either.
It has been clear for 10 years that the Gas Council was switching to producing town gas from oil rather than coal. It has been clear for six years that there would be an increasing use of natural gas. There is, therefore, absolutely no reason for the Government to have suddenly discovered these developments.
If the Government were caught unawares a year or 18 months ago by the rate at which the Gas Council was shutting down plants, it is only reasonable to ask what action they took to try to remedy the situation. For example, did they suggest anything which might have induced the Gas Council to keep plants open? Or had the clean air policy gone so far down the list of priorities for the Ministry of Power that such an alternative was hardly thought of?
Alternatively, can the Government blame it on to the National Coal Board? The National Coal Board is certainly not blameless. It is clear that it has been far from successful in hitting its targets for manufactured smokeless fuels.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: An understatement.

Mr. Chataway: Understatement is at least a technique. Perhaps my hon. Friend would go so far as to agree that no one could detect in the National Coal Board's pronouncements an unrestrained enthusiasm for the clean air policy.
Lord Robens warned the Government, we understand, five years ago that the Gas Council's run-down would cause a shortage of coke. What was the attitude of the Government when the Coal Board applied for open-cast workings, which, of course, are an important source of

high quality natural smokeless fuel, anthracite? The Government turned a large number of those applications down. In the fuel White Paper of 1967 they said:
Production of coal from open-cast sites employs comparatively few men for each ton of coal won, and reducing it therefore gives rise to fewer manpower difficulties than reducing deep-mined production…. The Government have therefore decided not to give further authorisations for open-cast production except in special cases where, because of quality or location, the coal to be produced is not in competition with coal from deep mines…".
That may well be right so far as the arguments deployed are concerned, but now the Coal Board is being given authorisation to work the open-cast mines, although too late. If the decision had been taken two or three years ago nobody extra would be out of work because the Coal Board would be able to sell the fuel which it is not now able to sell and the clean air policy would have been saved.
On 4th December the Paymaster-General was asked a Question on this subject, and, knowingly or unknowingly, he gave this Written Answer:
Generally supplies this winter, and those planned by producers for 1970–71, should be adequate, although there may be local difficulties in obtaining some grades, particularly in severe weather."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 355.]
That was only two months ago. It is very difficult to see how the right hon. Gentleman could have been so wrong. The weather could hardly have been milder. If there had been a severe winter one shudders to think what would be the situation. If we had a really cold snap, every chimney in the country would be belching dirt and grit into the atmosphere.
Was it that no information was given to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to suggest that, however slowly, new smokeless zones were being authorised? That is a possibility. It was not for lack of warnings from outside that the right hon. Gentleman was caught unawares. The Chamber of Coal Traders warned the Ministry of Power last summer, and the summer before, of a likely shortage. The Coal Merchants Federation, early in 1968, gave similar warnings. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain)


on 10th May, 1968, expressed the Federation's doubts in the House. He asked whether more smokeless zones would mean that there would be a shortage of smokeless fuel. He was assured that this was very unlikely.
In August, 1969, The Coal Times reported that the Coal Merchants Federation was again warning that there would be a shortage of gas-coke smokeless fuel. It said that a spokesman for the Coal Merchants Federation said that
between 500,000 and 1m. tons of Britain's total smokeless fuel requirements, about 8m. tons, might otherwise come from the gas board sources.
There was considerable doubt whether the gap could be filled. At that time the Ministry was assuring everyone that there would be no trouble at all.
The Domestic Coal Consumers Council gave further warnings. As one looks back on the record one finds that almost everyone except the Minister and his advisers were giving these warnings. In the Annual Report published early in December by the Domestic Coal Consumers Council as reported in the Daily Telegraph on 12th December there was a similar warning. The council was also said to be uneasy about prospects for 1970–71 because of a run-down of gas coke production. The Sunday Times of 14th December said that
a shortage of smokeless fuel is becoming severe in many regions of Britain although so far the winter has been milder than usual.
I do not believe it can be suggested that this is a shortage which has blown up unexpectedly. There has been absolutely no co-ordination between the Government Departments which are responsible. Lord Robens put it like this:
The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.… The Ministry of Local Government is urging clean air because of the health aspect but the Ministry of Technology should make sure that when one department decrees something the other department can meet the demand. It is not properly organised.
At Question Time the other day the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology called that "poetic licence". I would call it understatement.
The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning seems to have been blisfully unaware that there were any diffi-

culties. We had about 1,500 words or perhaps 2,000 of his urbane reflections on the environment in the Sunday Times on 15th January. He referred to pollution, urban sprawl, tourism—[HON. MEMBERS: "Toryism?"]—no, tourism—but in all this there was not a single word about clean air. This bodes extremely ill for the co-ordinating rôle that we were told by the Prime Minister in October is supposed to be the main justification for the right hon. Gentleman's appointment.
The Select Committee on Science and Technology urged months ago that the anti-pollution activities of Government should be concentrated in the hand of fewer Departments. The Committee made absolutely clear in its report that it was dissatisfied and worried by the arrangements which exist within the Government for co-ordinating anti-pollution measures of all kinds. The sorry events unfolded in this debate are another justification for the view to which the committee came then. Incidentally, I hope that it will not be too long before the Government give some reply to the detailed criticism by that Committee.
There are two damaging effects to which I particularly draw attention in this failure of Government policy. The first is on regional policy. Successive Governments have believed that the clean air policy is of importance in making the regions more attractive and in holding population there and in encouraging industry to go there. This must be right. It must make a great deal of difference to people in considering whether it is worth while cleaning buildings, whether washing on the line remains clean, and whether plants grow in the garden.
The effect of this failure in Government will be an appreciable setback in regional policy. Even more important, this has been a total bureaucratic nonsense. It has caused real hardship to individuals, and it has a psychological effect that will probably outlast its physical effects. The Yorkshire Post, which has been very active throughout the past two months in exposing the shortage of smokeless fuel, quoted a public health inspector in Yorkshire as saying:
The Ministry forced us into going smokeless by threatening to do it themselves. Now people are feeling the pinch. The Ministry keeps saying there is no shortage. You do


not know whom to believe—unless you are without fuel, that is.
Many people have found themselves not allowed to use ordinary fuel and yet unable to get smokeless fuel. This is exactly the kind of situation that will breed resistance to any future attempts to enforce clean air measures, and perhaps breed resistance to future attempts to protect the environment in other ways, because so often these efforts to improve the environment include placing restrictions upon people. They will be acceptable only if they are carefully thought out, if they do not result in the kind of bureaucratic muddle and nonsense that has resulted on this occasion.
This is a case in which there has been no co-ordination and apparently a straight lack of interest on the part of the Government. It coincides strangely with so many speeches from Ministers, including the Prime Minister, with, it sometimes seems, a discovery of the environment for the first time by the Prime Minister. We certainly welcome this new emphasis on conservation. With perhaps 20 Acts of major importance to the environment to the credit of the last Administration, we shall welcome it if the Prime Minister and others now wish to push these issues to the forefront of political argument. The instinct to conserve is not totally alien to the Conservative Party.
But what will be asked by people outside who are perhaps increasingly concerned with these problems is whether the speeches of the Prime Minister really mean anything. Is this simply another instance of the Prime Minister mimicking an American President? After all, we have had a great deal of emphasis on the matter from President Nixon over the past year. We all remember in the Kennedy era the 100 days of dynamic action, and in the early years of President Johnson the interminable talk there was from 10 Downing Street about consensus. Sure enough, six months after the issue becomes a major one in the United States it is included in every speech from the Prime Minister.
So I think that there will be doubts. Again it will be asked whether this is simply a new banner under which right hon. Gentlemen opposite want to launch a pre-election attack on private enterprise. In his Swansea speech the Prime Minister talked about the polluters being

powerful and organised, and there were dark asides about the sanctity of profit-making. Anybody who studies the attitude of the National Coal Board throughout this story will be cured of the idea that public corporations are necessarily more concerned with the environment that private ones.
On present evidence there will be an inclination to believe that these speeches amount to no more than a repetition of the "white heat of the technological revolution", of the 500,000 houses target and all the rest. As yet there is no evidence of anything beyond words.
The Government record in the matter of river pollution is not much better than it is in the case of air pollution. Circular 64 of 1968 from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has fairly effectively put a stop to anti-pollution measures in a large number of rivers. So, despite the high-flown phrases to which we have been treated, I believe that on present evidence one can say that the Government are well on the way to earning for themselves the title of the most pollutant Government of modern times.

7.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell): During his extraordinary speech, a speech which polluted the facts at every point at which they are known, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) said that understatement might be a technique. That is certainly not a charge that could be levelled at the hon. Member. His speech was the most exaggerated distortion of inaccuracies that I have heard during my time in the House, as I shall hope to demonstrate.
The Motion is in some way a tribute to the Government. There has been more activity on the question of the quality of living, the general question of environment, during the five years in office of the present Government than in any five years in the life of any previous Government.
The Shadow Minister for Sport is leaving us. The Shadow Minister for the Arts is not here. But we have a Shadow Minister of the Environment. The hon. Gentleman is on the Front Bench opposite today only because of the appointment by the Prime Minister of a Minister in charge of Environment. But for the


activities of my right hon. Friend, the Shadow Minister of Sport would not have been here, and he is gone. We do not hear much about him, nor of his colleagues. Certainly, since the hon. Gentleman was appointed in October to shadow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I note that he is not in the Shadow Cabinet—this is the first time these matters have been raised from the benches opposite.
They have been raised in the narrowest possible manner. The questions of the pollution of our rivers, beaches and the air are of tremendous importance and should be taken together in totality. Not one word about these issues was to be found in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, who concentrated on the absence of smokeless fuel in certain parts of the country. He gave us no information, but I intend to give the House more information on where smokeless fuel cannot be obtained. He does not know. Not a single case of hardship was mentioned by him during his 30-minute speech.
The Opposition's ignorance of what has been achieved in the lifetime of the present Government is—

Mr. David Lane: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howell: Not until I have worked up a head of steam, and then I might do so.
My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General will reply to the debate, and he will be pleased to talk in greater detail about the supply problems in the trade than I wish to do now. My task is to put the whole matter into perspective, but he will be glad to take up individual cases.
The hon. Gentleman said that this is an extremely complicated matter, especially because of the technological advances such as the changeover from one type of fuel to another, one type of power to another, and so on, which make it very difficult to make accurate forecasts. For example, the switch to natural gas is not the only major factor. The manufacture of town gas from oil, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the subsequent phasing out of traditional gasworks all necessitate the most complicated judgments not only by Government and the Coal Board, but by the private enterprise sector.
There is another factor which had no place in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but which has increasing significance. This is the habits of consumers and the choices they make. Even though we have more and more smokeless zones and more and more people who have converted their heating arrangements to take smokeless fuel, more and more of them are turning away from smokeless fuel towards other forms of heating, particularly gas, electricity and oil.

Sir G. Nabarro: They are smokeless fuels.

Mr. Howell: The point I am making will become apparent if I am allowed to make progress.
Where the Opposition are in difficulty is that they have believed everything they have been told by some of the interests involved, particularly by the private trade. There has been disagreement on the interpretation of the figures, particularly in relation to the range of choice to householders.
On 1st January, 1965, the consumption of smokeless fuels per annum was about 8 million tons. It has stayed at about that figure every year up to and including this one. There has been no significant increase in the amount of smokeless fuel consumed. Yet, in that period, the number of house premises which have switched over as a result of smoke control orders, and so on, is 2,234,594. In other words, if we take only the number of domestic and other premises subject to smoke control orders, there is that nucleus of under 2¼ million homes but no increase in the overall amount of smokeless fuel consumed.
With that number one must take into account the whole housing programme. Most of the new homes have been fitted to burn smokeless fuel. Every time, for example, a slum house is demolished, the house built in its place is fitted for smokeless fuel. Put all this together and a remarkable trend emerges, away from the smokeless fuel which is the subject of the Motion towards other forms of domestic heating, and this makes it extremely difficult to give accurate forecasts.
Nevertheless, for the reasons I have stated and for some of the reasons stated by the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend felt just before Christmas that it


would be right to use his powers under Section 11 of the Clean Air Act, 1956, to authorise the suspension of smoke control orders during the winter if he was asked to do so by local authorities. If the hon. Gentleman was right in his claim that shortage is very widespread and is of such magnitude, a very large number of local authorities would have asked my right hon. Friend for the suspension of their orders. But what are the facts?
There are over 350 local authorities with smoke control orders in operation and 16 of them have asked for suspension of their orders. That is hardly the sort of evidence on which to mount a vote of censure and on which to make the sort of hysterical comments we have heard from the hon. Gentleman. The figure in percentage terms is 4 per cent. If that adds up to failure, or deplorable failure, or a grinding to a halt, then the English language seems to have lost its meaning—which, of course, it increasingly does on the benches opposite as we draw nearer to the election.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: But the hon. Gentleman must know of cases of hardship in Birmingham which have been reported in the Birmingingham Evening Mail. In King's Heath and Hall Green there has been difficulty of supply.

Mr. Howell: Not within my knowledge, except in so far as I saw the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) debating on television with an official of the Coal Board. That official made a point which I do not think the hon. Gentleman understood—to be fair to him, it was perhaps because they were in different studios separated by 120 miles.
Because of this complaint of hardship, which has been grossly exaggerated, Lord Robens took the initiative and instructed his area managers to write to every Member of Parliament saying that, if they had any cases of hardship and got in touch with the board, the matter would be dealt with within 24 hours. That was the reply which the area manager concerned gave on television to the hon. Member for Hall Green.

Mr. Eyre: The area manager denied that there was any shortage. Since then, I have sent him seven letters of direct complaint and he has now admitted that there is difficulty.

Mr. Howell: I have not heard that from the area manager, but I did hear him on television. He said that he had heard about the complaint only on Friday morning and had caused a load of fuel to be delivered to the constituent concerned first thing on the Monday morning. He could not have acted more quickly.
I want to give figures relating to those hon. Members who would have been the recipients of all this information if it were in existence. After all, if people are complaining bitterly, they usually get in touch with their Members of Parliament. In the Midlands, 17 hon. Members responded to the letter asking them to get in touch with the appropriate Coal Board official and they delivered 20 complaints. In Yorkshire, 11 hon. Members, in Lancashire 25, and in London and the South 12 got in touch with the Board. Altogether, 65 hon. Members replied to the letter, many of them merely acknowledging it, and only 40 complaints were forwarded for the Board to deal with.
That is the size of the problem that the hon. Member for East Grinstead decided to exaggerate out of all proportion.

Mr. Lane: The hon. Gentleman appears to be talking on a different wavelength from the experience which many of us have had, whether or not he has been in touch with the Board. In a large area of East Anglia around my constituency, the delay for a number of types of smokeless fuel is eight or nine weeks. That is hardship.

Mr. Howell: I am aware that certain types of smokeless fuel are in greater demand, or shorter supply, than others. We are dealing with hardship and the situation as a whole. The hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us the extent of the hardship his constituents have suffered, whether he has accepted the offer by the Board to deal with the matter and how it has been dealt with. The House can then judge between us.
I want to turn to the whole story of smoke control orders so that the position


can be judged fairly. By the end of 1964—the halcyon days which the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead was taking credit for—1,668 orders had been confirmed, involving 2,167,000 premises, an annual average of 239 orders involving 309,000 premises. That is what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chichester described as a spectacular success.

Mr. Chataway: And Lord Delacourt-Smith.

Mr. Howell: And Lord Delacourt-Smith.
The hon. Gentleman emphasised the phrase "spectacular a success." He was talking about 239 orders a year, involving 309,000 premises. If that is a spectacular success what adjectives would he like to apply to the record of this Government when our annual average of orders confirmed has not been 239 but 299? When the number of premises involved is not 309,000, but 447,000? There is no suggestion in those figures that the Government have run out of steam and are grinding to a halt. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) is very good at coming to the aid of his colleagues when they are in difficulties—he does it every Tuesday and Thursday and we watch in admiration.
The right hon. Member is trying to help the hon. Gentleman now, but the hon. Gentleman said that we were running out of steam, not making or confirming the orders. This is not so and the figures prove it. They prove that the procedure is going on faster than ever. The facts from the London Weather Centre also underline the Government's activities starting from the 1956 Act, largely the instrument of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). I remember that he was then the Member for Kidderminster. I think that this was the first time that I ever sat on the Committee stage on the Bill and I took a great interest in it. I remember that the hon. Gentleman's first action was to put down 364 Amendments to it. That was what he thought of the Bill. My first action was to put my name to all his Amendments so that he could not withdraw them without my permission.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is unfair. It is a matter of 15 years ago,

but if he reads the record he will find that the great majority of the Amendments were accepted because they were lifted out of the previous year's Clean Air Act, which was a Private Member's Measure. The first name on that Measure was that of Lord Robens.

Mr. Howell: That is true. I also recollect that the Amendments which were not accepted involved the industrial processes, the alkali division. I had to move them because during that time the hon. Gentleman, unfortunately, was ill and was not able to be present.

Sir G. Nabarro: No. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. I voted against my own party in Committee in 1956, on the alkali Clause, Clause 17, and defeated the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was the Minister and the hon. Member voted with me in defeating the Government on alkali. Now get up and own up.

Mr. Howell: I am prepared to own up to the fact that by the time we had got through all these Amendments and reached the debate on the Clause as a whole the hon. Gentleman had recovered from his illness. At that stage we did defeat the Government.
What is the current situation? Far from postponing any of those orders, as the hon. Gentleman opposite said, we are proceeding to deal with them. There are 69 orders within our Ministry awaiting confirmation. Where the hon. Gentleman got his information from, I do not know. When my right hon. Friend does confirm the orders he will certainly draw to the attention of the local authorities the fuel situation. It would make a nonsense to postpone orders which would mean stopping people implementing them in another area where there was no shortage. We have no intention of doing any such thing.
The hon. Member made a passing reference to the Clean Air Act, 1968, mainly the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell). On that occasison we paid tribute to his efforts, which have had a considerable effect. The Minister now has powers which the 1956 Act did not give him. He has far stronger powers to deal with certain situations. It is now an offence either to buy or supply a smoke-producing fuel in any area covered by an order.


It empowers the Minister to require local authorities to prepare a programme. The 1968 Act puts right many of the deficiencies of the 1956 Act and it has had a spectacular success.
The hon. Gentleman was talking about "black authorities", which was the definition of Sir Hugh Beaver. The House might like to know the figures on such authorities. There were 324 of them in 1960; in 1968, at the point when we had the new Act, there were 83 and today, as a result of two years' working of that Act, we are down to 23 authorities which could be described as "black". This is no mean achievement. My hon. Friend's Measure gives the Government a powerful stick, but the indications are not that we shall not need to use it.
I am glad to join in paying tribute to the Alkali Inspectorate for the tremendous work it has done, particularly by way of encouragement, to deal with the industrial processes of grit and dust and sulphur dioxide. There has been a tremendous improvement—a 50 per cent. improvement was shown in the figures I have given earlier from the London Weather Centre on smoke concentrations at ground level.
The important thing to remember is that we are not dealing with this problem in isolation. We are tackling pollution on an all-round basis, particularly in rivers. At present, there is a survey of the extent of river pollution going on and we hope to know by the end of this year the degree, extent and type of pollution, mile by mile, for every river in the country. Then we will be able to make the necessary judgments to sustain progress.
The hon. Gentleman made a light reference to the Prime Minister, I do not know why. If it had not been for the appointment of my right hon. Friend the hon. Gentleman would not be sitting there today. Leisure and the quality of life must be taken together. The record of the Government bears comparison with anything that can be put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. As to the Prime Minister's activities in connection with pollution, they date from before he went to Washington recently. He made a major speech at the Labour Party conference in 1969 and another at Swansea on 10th January this year. He has specifically appointed my right hon. Friend

the Secretary of State to deal with the whole question of environmental matters.
In December of last year my right hon. Friend announced the setting up of a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. We now have a permanent central unit established by the Secretary of State to assist him in his co-ordinating rôle. I could also describe the activities of the Government in dealing with another question of pollution—the growing problem of noise.
My conclusion from all this is that we should be obliged to the Opposition for enabling us to show how this Government, for five years, have been dealing with the environment and the quality of living, during most of which time not one word has been heard from the Opposition. The Government's record is active and exciting. No censure Motion has ever been more ill-conceived or more misdirected, and I ask the House to reject it with contempt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I must remind the House of Mr. Speaker's request for short speeches, in view of the fact that a large number of hon. and right hon. Members wish to take part in this short debate.

8.10 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I intend to be very short and not emulate the 31 minutes of my own Front Bench, followed by almost as lengthy a speech from the Government Front Bench, which is grossly unfair to back benchers in a three-hour debate, which is already substracted from by nearly a quarter of an hour for the Divisions at the outset.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968 and the originating Private Member's Bill in 1955, also called the Clean Air Bill.
Of course there is a shortage of one type of smokeless fuel. The Minister of State is a very good football referee, but not very good on fuel and power matters. He failed this evening to point out to the House that there are five different forms of smokeless fuel, and that we should differentiate between them. First, there is the form of solid smokeless fuel derived from coal mines, such an anthracite coal; second, there is the form of


solid smokeless fuel which derives from carbonised coal and is generally called coke; the third is oil; the fourth is electricity, and the fifth is gas. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have delineated those at the beginning of his speech.
There is no shortage of oil; there is no shortage of electricity; there is no shortage of gas; but there is an ephemeral shortage—and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) was exactly right in drawing attention to it—in some parts of the country of the different types of solid smokeless fuel.
I will deal first with coke, which we all know as gasworks coke. The reason for the shortage of coke is not very far to seek. It arises from two causes. The first is the use of crude oil at gasworks, instead of coking coal, for the manufacture of town's gas, and the second is the substitution of natural gas for town's gas.
I could not illustrate this more clearly than by relating the story of what happened to me aver the weekend before last Christmas. The House rose on the Friday. I went home to my constituency in Worcestershire, where I live, on the Friday afternoon. I was telephoned on the Saturday morning from Evesham and told that the principal hospital in Evesham would run out of coke before Christmas, and the hospital patients would be cold and shivering during the Christmas holidays. I was asked whether I would do something urgently to get supplies of coke for the hospital.
When I started investigating this in depth, I sent telegrams to Lord Robens—not in response to his invitation but because this is my customary procedure in such matters—and I discovered that the hospital had always bought its coke, its smokeless fuel, from the gasworks at Cheltenham, but the gasworks had been shut, because the whole area had been converted to natural gas appliances, and there was no more coke. The coke was now coming from a South Wales Coal Board establishment at Nantgarw. That is the reason for the shortage of solid fuel in one town in my constituency. My complaint is that nobody had foreseen it.
Exactly the same thing has happened with solid smokeless fuel of the premium

kinds which include anthracite. If I may correct my hon. Friend, who seemed to be floundering deeply when talking about open-cast mining, we do not open-cast bituminous coals for the clean air policy; we open-cast only anthracite coals for the clean air policy. Bituminous coals would be no good at all for the clean air policy. There is a shortage of premium solid fuels such as anthracite supplied from the Coal Board and the Phurnacite premium fuel also supplied by the Coal Board and coke from the gas boards. In any event, these premium fuels are so high in price as to ration themselves to most domestic consumers.
I happen to be very strongly on the side of the Government and Establishment in this new sophisticated soubriquet "environmental pollution". Nobody had ever heard of it until a few weeks ago. The right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) nods his head in dissent, but the fact is that nobody in this country, save for one or two boffins, had ever heard of environmental pollution. [Interruption.] I wish the hon. Gentleman would not use vulgar expressions. I heard what he said, and I would not repeat it. I am at least as well informed in these matters as he is, and 99·9 per cent. of my constituents have never heard of environmental pollution until a few weeks ago.

Mr. John Ellis: They had never heard of soubriquet either!

Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, it is a scientific soubriquet. If the hon. Gentleman had not heard of it, he has learned from me this evening. This is a real danger to the whole of Western civilisation. Although I must be short in this debate tonight, there will be future opportunities on the Floor of the House to debate it in greater depth.
I talk at a distance of 15 years from the first Clean Air Act passed by this House, which was described at the time as a revolution at the fireside, because it involved replacing all domestic open fireplaces in Britain over a period of one or two decades, so as to cleanse the atmosphere and get rid of the "black" areas of Britain as they were depicted in the Beaver Report of 1954.
The danger is that all the progress made by Tory Governments from 1956


to 1964 and by Labour Governments since that date—and they have carried on largely the same policy—will be negatived by the huge increase in atmospheric pollution resulting from two causes. The first is the exhausts of motor vehicles, which cause the appalling pall over our cities today. No progress has been made in the United States or in Britain towards ridding the atmosphere of the noxious fumes from the exhausts of motor vehicles, both petrol engines and diesel engines. The second is the increasing danger of belching the by-products of sulphur combustion into the atmosphere at power stations and other large industrial establishments.

Mr. Ellis: Mr. Ellis rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: I have been less than 10 minutes on this speech, and I intend to sit down in less than one minute from now, because many of my hon. Friends wish to take part and as an example to my own Front Bench on how to make short speeches. I rebuke my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester; in future he should make 10-minute speeches, not 31-minute speeches. I want to hear the views of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) on his 1968 Clean Air Act.
The Minister of State who responded to my hon. Friend's speech was not correct in dismissing as fanciful the widespread complaints about shortages of solid smokeless fuels. There are shortages. But our own Opposition draftsmen are faulty. The Motion before the House should read:
That this House deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to ensure the supplies of solid smokeless fuel necessary to implement …
and so on. There is not shortage of oil or of electricity or of gas. There is only a shortage of solid smokeless fuel. In future I hope that my hon. Friends will consult me before they put these Motions down.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro).

Sir G. Nabarro: Well, as my publisher the hon. Gentleman has to agree with me.

Mr. Maxwell: Having listened to the remarkable statistics of progress as presented to the House my hon. Friend the Minister of State in response to the non-facts presented by the Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition, I can only deplore, as I am sure will the whole country, that the instrument of censure should be so debased as it has been tonight in a Motion on such a deplorable basis and on which the Opposition spokesman should be so ill prepared. It serves him and the Tory Party right that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, who knows more about fuel than the hon. Member for Chichester will learn during the rest of his life, should have had to rebuke him properly and publicly for the shoddy manner in which this non-Motion of censure has been drafted and which ought never to have been brought.
I should like to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)—who, I regret to say, is not at the moment in the House—who together with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South and many people on both sides of the House has taken such a great interest in and positive steps to bring about the Clean Air Act of which we are all so proud. They have indeed achieved many good things. In London we can now see the sun shining as brightly as it does in Norfolk or in Worcestershire.
When I say that I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the Alkali Inspectorate has done good work in recent years, I hope that it will not be taken as a licence to sit back and relax. There are great pollutants which still remain and must be tackled, ones which I regret to say I had to delete from my Clean Air Act because I was threatened both by industry and by the Government that if I did not the Act would not get on the Statute Book. I had to remove any question of trying to deal with vehicle exhaust and the problem of industrial exhaust fumes and dust.
One reason why legislation on vehicle exhaust and industrial dust emission and gases could not easily be introduced in the 1968 Clean Air Act, or perhaps even in any other Act, very quickly is that the research and development into methods of combating this ghastly nuisance are lagging far behind public demand, which


is insisting on an urgent improvement in the quality of life.
My constituency is the centre of the brick industry. My constituents in Bletchley and in many other places as well as in Bedfordshire are suffering nausea and a great many discomforts as a result of the exhausts and emissions emanating from the production processes of that industry. For years they have been promised an improvement, but nothing has happened.
I must warn the Government as well as industry that the public will not put up for many years longer with just words. I urgently invite the Government to join hands with the Americans, Europeans and Russians to set up an international research organisation to club in with more funds and bring about a faster exchange of information about how this problem can be tackled.
In my constituency I have a very large cement works, and thousands of my constituents live in its area. Every time a mother puts her baby out in a pram she finds it covered with dust. She cannot put out her washing. Farmers in the surrounding areas find their cattle suffering disease and illness which they do not know how to protect themselves against.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Motion deals specifically with supplies of smokeless fuel. He is getting rather wide of the Motion.

Mr. Maxwell: Since the wording of the Motion does not specify smokeless fuel, could I have the advice of the Chair?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not been ingenious enough so far to keep his remarks within the scope of the Motion on the Order Paper, which deals with smokeless fuel.

Mr. Maxwell: Is it not headed "Smokeless Zones and Pollution"? I am merely trying to bring to the notice of the House the terrible sufferings caused not just to constituents in my area, but to people all over the country because of industrial pollutants emitted by motor vehicles and industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The main theme of the Motion is, clearly, smokeless fuel. The hon. Gentleman must stick to that.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: We might have had shorter speeches from the Front Bench had that Ruling been made at an earlier stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The remarks that I have heard from the Front Bench or backbenches so far have been in order. I have indicated to the hon. Gentleman that he is getting out of order.

Mr. Maxwell: Of course I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Sir G. Nabarro: Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you direct your attention to the form of words in the Motion, "particularly in view of the stress laid on environmental pollution in recent Ministerial speeches"? Is it not the intention of the Government to fit arresters to all the chimneys of the cement works in the hon. Member's constituency, Buckingham, thereby improving the environmental attitudes and leading to a cleaner life for all his constituents?

Mr. Peter Emery: Why does not my hon. Friend make the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) for him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is very ingenious but the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) is outside the terms of the Motion, which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South was scrupulously careful to keep inside. The hon. Member for Buckingham must also do so.

Mr. Maxwell: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Government have heard what the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South has said and will do something promptly to put the kind of arresters on the chimneys of the brick and cement works in my area. We should be eternally grateful if that were possible. I fear, however, that this is not likely to happen tomorrow.
I conclude by appealing again to the Government, and I hope that when the Paymaster-General comes to wind up, instead of wasting time in demolishing Her Majesty's Opposition's non-case on this issue he will be good enough to tell the House and the country of the positive steps which the Government are currently taking to encourage research and development in environmental research and what concrete projects the


Government have in mind to bring this evil of the 20th century under control.

8.33 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I speak on this important subject both as a doctor and as a politician. That does not mean that I shall make a very long speech as I shall be saying the same things from both points of view, and I shall be supporting the Motion.
Despite what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) has said, it is the business of Government to predict the future consequences of present actions. For the Minister of State to come along and say, "If we are building new houses and put smokeless fuel-burning appliances in them this will result in a greater demand for smokeless fuel", is not good enough. This is the kind of thing that the Government should think ahead about.
The facts are clear. Although I do not share in all the criticism, there is a shortage of smokeless fuels and that shortage has impeded the clean-air programme and is doing something more important—it is turning many people against the clean air programme. It has not been easy over the years—and for 15 years or more I have spoken and written about the hazards of polluted air—to convince people of the necessity of burning smokeless fuels. I am bound to say that an empty grate is not the kind of argument to which many people respond. The present situation is dangerous and so far as there is a shortage—and some people are finding it difficult to comply with the regulations—we are beginning to put the clock back. We must not do this.
I have been a little uneasy about the extent of complacency in this debate. We have been told that this, that and the other has been done. But we have not done anything like enough. I speak with pride as one who comes from an area which has reason to be proud of its achievement in this field. We have heard rightly of the activities of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and of the hon. Member for Buckingham. But let me remind them both that the City of Manchester pioneered the whole idea of smokeless zones. It was way back in the 19th century that Manchester formed the Noxious Vapours Abatement Association.

Hon. Members may say that it had need of it. But it was that which led to the Smoke Abatement League of 1909, formed in Manchester, and to the Smoke Abatement Bill, drafted by Manchester in 1912, but finally pushed through as the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act, 1916. Finally it was the brilliant concept of smokeless zones of Charles Gardy which was enshrined in the Clean Air Act, 1956. But I certainly join in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South for what he did also.
I also speak with pride as representing a constituency which contains four urban districts, one of which is Cheadle and Gatley. That district, with a population of 55,000, became, on 1st August, 1968, the first local authority outside London to complete its smoke-control programme. Ten smoke-control orders were made under that Act to prohibit the use of bituminous fuel in all dwelling-houses in the area or by industrial premises unless they were designed to burn smokeless fuel. I take pride that one of my urban districts was one of the first to implement the Clean Air Act in full. The policy has worked. The kind of measurements which have been done have shown an encouraging decline in visible pollutants—smoke—and also invisible pollutants, such as sulphur-dioxide, which has declined, too.
But let us not be too complacent. If we slip back we shall soon be in difficulty. Let us not forfeit the benefits we have earned by relaxing now. As has been said, the benefits include more hours of sunshine, not only in London but everywhere, and better visibility. Better visibility benefits aviation and all kinds of activities. Lower cleaning bills for people, local authorities and industry. More leisure for housewives—who would otherwise spend more time cleaning—as they do now in dirty polluted areas—and less damage to buildings and machinery, including agricultural machinery. There are still farms in some industrial areas, where ploughs sometimes perish within months, because of the action of sulphur-dioxide.
Despite the action which has been taken, in some areas, during fog and smog, people are breathing a weak solution of sulphuric acid. Most important


of all is the effect that all this has on health, and it is about this that I want to say something. There is the obvious effect of atmospheric pollution as a contributory cause of lung cancer, which is a source of great worry. As a cause of lung cancer, it plays an important part, though a very much less important part than another pollutant, tobacco.
The main importance of pollution, from a health point of view, is that it causes bronchitis, a condition known for good reason as the English disease. Bronchitis is five times as common in Britain as it is in any other European country, and about twenty times as common in Britain as it is in the Scandinavian and most European countries. It accounts for 30,000 to 40,000 deaths every year in this country.
One in five of all items of service given by general practitioners is for chest complaints of one kind or another related to bronchitis. We lose 25 million working days a year through this disease, at a cost to the nation of more than £100 million a year.
Whether we win the World Cup or not, a matter in which the Minister of State has some interest, there can be no doubt that we are top of the world at poisoning the population. Whatever we may have done so far, the fact is that we have not done enough. It is true that we may not see again the sort of things that we saw during the great smog of 1952 in London, but we could see them again if we were to relax, bearing in mind the growth in housing, industry and in the use of motor vehicles. All these things are playing their parts. We could return to the 1952 conditions when in London the sun shone brightly on the tops of buildings, while down below about 8 million people were struggling to breathe a dense cloud of chemical-laden fumes; and 4,000 of them died—in only four days.
That is the size of the problem. Those people died from atmospheric pollution. Let us accept that we have made great progress and that we are not likely to get back to that state of affairs—we simply must not—but it is important to realise what is the main cause of atmospheric pollution. I am sorry to say that it is the domestic consumer, who has been difficult to deal with in the past. He has looked at the example, which is not often

a good one, set by power stations in many places belching forth black smoke and has felt that his little bucket of coal was not important.
Hospitals, too, have not always set a good example. Some time ago a hospital I know introduced an excellent new air-conditioned ward for the treatment of bronchitis. Rather paradoxically, just outside there was a chimney belching forth smoke to give people the bronchitis they came into the hospital to be treated for in the special ward. Things have improved greatly, but all the time there has been this basic resistance of the domestic consumer because he finds it difficult to appreciate the significance of his own coal fire.
It is difficult to persuade people of the importance of measures of this kind, and when supplies are hard to come by, or when the proper fuel is made more costly, implementing the measures becomes more difficult. The importance of the shortage of smokeless fuels is not so much that because of the shortage everybody is suddenly burning coal fires, but that we are putting the whole programme back. We are turning many people against something which they had been persuaded to support.
This is one of the main problems facing the Government. If they mean to tackle environmental pollution, they have to realise that they are dealing with conflicts within society. So far as industry is concerned, they are dealing with a conflict between the need for plentiful and cheap goods, and the need for clean air. The Government must resolve this conflict and lead people towards the right answer. Officialdom does not always do that. Recently, close to my area, and adjacent to the area in which I practise, there was a typical case of British compromise when there was a conflict.
I refer to the new Shell plant, on the Partington and Carrington Industrial Estate. A new chimney was to be put into use. The residents from the area protested, so there was a public hearing.
The development could have been stopped, which would have been undesirable. Shell could have been required to put in a smoke and fume washing plant at a very considerable cost, or they could have been made to make


the chimney higher. This was the compromise which was inevitably arrived at, so that the smoke and filth, instead of dropping on the people where my practice is, now go two or three miles further and drop on the people of Stretford.
This is not solving the problem; it is hiding from it. It is not an easy problem to solve, I accept that, but the Government must help people to do so. If they are to get ordinary consumers to co-operate they must make it worth while, and to do this they must make smokeless fuel cheap and plentiful. At the moment, it is not cheap and it is not plentiful, and for that reason I and my colleagues on this bench will oppose the Government.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. David Watkins: We have in this country, of course, the most advanced legislation in the world for dealing with matters of atmospheric pollution. The 1956 Act is by no means the only Act which is relevant to the matter, because a considerable time before that there was the town and country planning legislation, which was put through the House in the 1945 to 1950 Parliament, and which gave our planning authorities far greater powers than they had ever possessed before to deal with the siting of obnoxious industrial plants relative to residential areas. This has played a very considerable rôle in the progress which has been made.
I think it fair to say, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out in the debate, that, on the whole, the legislation has been reasonably effective. Anyone who compares the Sheffield or Stoke-on-Trent of today with those places of 20 years ago is bound to be enormously impressed by the progress which has been made in those two cities in the introduction of smokeless zones. While recognising that enormous improvements have been made in London, I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House who spoke about these were being a little over-optimistic in saying that the sun now shines as brightly in London as in the country areas. The fact is that, notwithstanding the smokeless zones—and, certainly, the terrible smogs of bygone days will never occur again in London—there is still a considerable

amount of pollution in London, and this is the measure of the further progress which now needs to be made.
I think it true to say that in the country today there is a strong desire for further progress to be made, but I very much agree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), when he drew attention to the fact that there is a need for national education in what is actually required. As he so rightly said, almost every local authority which has sought to bring in smokeless zones has had to face very considerable local opposition. In fact, the Stanley Urban District Council, in County Durham, in my own constituency, introduced a smokeless zone about six years ago and as a direct result the ruling Labour Party lost a substantial number of seats in the local elections. I was glad to see that in the subsequent election, three years later, they were almost all regained, and this is a measure of the fact that progress can be made.
Yet, in spite of the will to improve and extend smokeless conditions, and of the advanced legislation and the improvements which have been made, the fact remains that there are grave problems still of pollution in industrial areas, even where efforts have bene made to introduce smokeless zones. I represent a constituency which has very serious problems of pollution arising from the existence there of a large steel works.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The Motion is much more specific than the debate the hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise relating to steel works. It is concerned with supplies of smokeless fuel. In view of the short debate, I think the hon. Gentleman must stick to the Motion.

Mr. Watkins: May I draw your attention to the wording of the Motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which mentions the stress laid on environmental pollution. This, with respect, is the point I am making.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The view of the Chair is that the Motion concerns the supply of smokeless fuel, and the hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to that.

Mr. Watkins: With great respect, if that Ruling had been given earlier the


debate would have been considerably shortened. Before your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, hon. Members on both sides of the House went considerably wider than that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot enter into a discussion of that topic.

Mr. Watkins: I accept your Ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My point is that the whole subject of environmental pollution goes wider than the present shortage of smokeless fuel. I have had only one specific complaint from a constituent about the shortage, and that same constituent told me that, within 24 hours, he had taken delivery of a ton of coke. I suspect that the shortage of smokeless fuel is exaggerated, although there is a problem and I do not seek to disguise it.
Smokeless zones have been introduced in my constituency, but notwithstanding all the progress which has been made all the powers with which local authorities are armed, and the fact that the British Steel Corporation has spent £1-million in my constituency alone trying to come to terms with the problem of pollution, it remains true that my constituents are showered with dirt and pollution every day. There are even those who cannot eat the vegetables which they grow in their gardens because of the filth which falls upon them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I notice that you are getting restless again, and I do not wish to invoke your ire. However, perhaps I might make three brief points by way of elaboration of those made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), in what was an extremely good overall assessment of the situation. Since the hon. Gentleman was not ruled out of order, I assume that it will be in order to do that.
In a highly industrialised society such as ours, in which so many people and so much industry are concentrated in a comparatively small area, clean air is not cheap. Astonishing though it may seem to say that air is expensive, one of the points which have to be put across to people is that we have to pay the price for introducing clean air. That is why my remarks about the expenditure of the steel works in my constituency were by no means irrelevant—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps not irrelevant to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but out of order in discussing the Motion.

Mr. Watkins: I will try to keep in order in the remainder of my remarks.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South was ruled to be in order in making his points. If I might elaborate slightly on another of them, may I say that the country faces grave problems as a result of the new industries which are developing. All the legislation which we have enacted with a view to creating smokeless zones and to deal with planning, was designed to come to terms with the pollution and the other problems of the 19th century. It was the middle of the 20th century before we succeeded.
Surely, it is all important that the growing problems of pollution should not be dealt with in the 21st century, but must be dealt with here and now.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I was amazed by the speech of the Minister of State in answer to this censure Motion. With great pride and a certain crass complacency, the Minister got up to say that everything was going well, but somehow he neglected to point out that six days after the beginning of European Conservation Year the Government had begun banning smokeless zones and started a pollution standstill because of the shortage of smokeless fuel. Indeed, he went on to quote a number of figures. I tried to interrupt him, but was unsuccessful.
Therefore, I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology whether he will ensure that the Minister who is to wind up clears up a very strange and definite contradiction that appears to arise from figures that the Minister of State gave to the House and statements made by the Ministry published in the Guardian on 17th December:
The Ministry of Housing and Local Government has decided that because the production of smokeless fuel cannot be increased at a sufficient rate, no new smoke control orders will come into operation until after April 1971.
Is that correct, or is it not? I was informed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government last week that not only was that information correct, but that nothing had been done about approving smokeless zone orders since October of last year.
This is the background to the debate; not the sort of devil-may-care knockabout stuff that the Minister of State tried to give to the House. It is a debate really to debunk Uncle Harold who is attempting to claim that the Labour Party has discovered the evils of pollution because it wishes to capitalise on this, and suggesting that everybody should be grateful.
Not only is that claim of Labour Party propaganda basically untrue—we have had all the facts presented way back from Manchester to the Conservative Act of 1956 and the steps taken since then—but I remind the Minister that the Conservative White Paper, Cmnd. 2231, of December, 1963, stated:
By 1970 the total shortage of fuels for improved and unimproved grates"—
for smokeless zone purposes—
may be about two million tons a year.
In 1963 we predicted that there would be a shortage. This is the Government of planning, the Government of great technological achievements. What the blazes have they been doing since 1963? They have been making a greater shortage, because that was two million tons less with a prediction of over eleven million tons, not the eight million which the Government are suggesting. So, even if they got half way to trying to meet it we should have been without the shortage of smokeless fuel that we now have.
The major criticism is not only a lack of urgency, but a lack of information. The right hand of the Ministry of Technology does not know what the left hand of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is doing. Indeed, the Minister had the indignity—I am sorry for him, because I believe that it was not has fault but that of his officials who were unable to brief him—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Alan Williams): The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Alan Williams) rose—

Mr. Emery: When I have finished this sentence I will be delighted to give way.
On 23rd January, six smokeless zones were cancelled. By the following Friday week, the number had risen to fourteen. By the following Tuesday, the Minister, who had not been informed of the alteration, had to tell us that it was fifteen.

Mr. Alan Williams: Since the hon. Member has mentioned a situation in which I was unfortunately involved, perhaps I might say that he has done himself less than justice here.
In a personal apology to the House, which he accepted immediately, I accepted full personal responsibility for having quoted a figure that I had used the previous Monday in a broadcast; the figures had changed on the Thursday and Friday prior to the Monday Question Time. The responsibility was mine. The hon. Gentleman cannot blame the Government machine for the fact that I happened to get two figures mixed up.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Member is very gallant in taking responsibility on himself, but that mistake should not have been made, because the briefing should have got the matter clear.
Lord Robens himself said:
The Ministry of Local Government is urging clean air because of the health aspect but the Ministry of Technology should make sure that when one Department decrees something the other Department can meet the demand. It is not properly organised.
That is not a Conservative, but an ex-Socialist M.P. and chairman of a major nationalised industry.
It has been claimed that the demand and the supply should be in the region of 8 million tons. It is evident from these figures, which were given both by the Paymaster-General on 4th December and then again by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on 18th December, that they had no realisation that since October of that year the Ministry of Housing had been saying that nothing could be done about smokeless zones. It is not just a lack of co-ordination. It is that one Ministry does not understand the problems of another.
We should be grateful for some figures about the future supply of smokeless fuel. In the Homefire production plant at Coventry, I understand, only one of the three streams is currently in use, and even in that there are problems of operation. The total capacity of this plant is 600,000 tons per year, but it is producing for this year an estimate not of 50 per cent. or even one-sixth, but just 90,000 tons. At Markham, where room heat is being produced, the total capacity is meant to be 240,000 tons a year and it


is hoped that this may be reached in 1972–73, but again only one of the two streams is currently in use. The other is being "refurbished", whatever that means. Personnel at both these plants claim that there is little possibility of their getting anywhere near their targets.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Would my hon. Friend comment on the fact that today I went to my local coal merchant to buy 1 cwt. of Homefire and that I have the order here with me—one lump of Homefire out of a display case and no hope of any further supplies for at least two or three months?

Mr. Emery: That is a telling point and I hope that it will be answered. Indeed, I hope that my hon. Friend will give the Paymaster-General the one lump to remind him of the shortages.
It is astonishing to compare Government plans with the amount of production that has come from the private sector. The production of Coalite and Rexco has increased by more than 50 per cent.—from 1 million to over 1·5 million tons. The production of the small independent coking plants has virtually doubled between 1966–67 and today. This shows that it can be done. Why, when the Government are in control of the matter, do we see such abysmal failure?
The trouble is that the planning of the so-called super-Ministry of Technology is too cumbersome. It is unable to push forward with the type of overall policy which the Conservatives implemented and which would have been near to the fulfilment had we been in power. Instead, we are in the mess that hon. Gentlemen opposite have created.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Probert: As a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak, I will be brief.
In my constituency is situated one of the nation's largest plants for the supply of smokeless fuel. I refer to the Phurnacite plant. The N.C.B. is embarking on a 5 million expansion project, and this is to be welcomed. Nevertheless, my constituents suffer a considerable nuisance because of the incongruity involving 4 million tons of English coal being imported into Wales.
I am not a Welsh Nationalist. Nor do I resent English coal coming into

Wales. However, this importation creates severe problems because of the high volatility of the coal. We are, after all, speaking about smokeless zones. A serious hazard is being created in this Phurnacite area.
Another point to bear in mind is that we supply the finest dry steam coal in the world. This fuel, apart from anthracite, is naturally smokeless. I hope that the Minister will bring pressure on Lord Robens not to close down pits which supply this naturally smokeless fuel. One pit which supplies the finest coal in the world is on the jeopardy list because it is not viable. Considering the shortage of fuel facing the country, we should look carefully before closing pits on grounds of non-viability.
If I were to level a criticism, it would be at the N.C.B., but, as the Minister said in an excellent speech, it is difficult to prognosticate changes in consumer choice. This is where the N.C.B. may have slipped up. In an effort to combat the shortage of coking coal it is embarking on a £5 million expansion project, as I said. While that programme is to be welcomed, it should have been embarked upon some years ago.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I do not mean to speak in favour of pollution, but I want to moderate the apparently unqualified enthusiasm that has been displayed for smokeless fuel and clean air. I have been concerned with what is now called the environment for over 20 years—indeed, long before it was fashionable. I mind very much about atmospheric pollution, particularly the worst form of atmospheric pollution of all, which is noise. I hope, therefore, that the House will believe me when I say that I speak from an unpolluted heart.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that, although the hon. Member would be making a very interesting speech, he would be out of order if he pursued that line.

Mr. Smith: I had noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how strict you were this evening and I was going to say no more on that topic.
Of course pollution is deplorable. Looking through the evidence submitted


to one of the committees on pollution, I noticed a letter from a man listing in detail the pollutions of the River Calder and ending with:
P.S. This letter is written with water from the River Calder.
Of course we would all like clean air, and clean everything, just as we would like more research into dangerous diseases, earlier retirement, or longer holidays; but the question, when dealing with smokeless fuel and clean air, is: how much can we afford? It is no use being like a Russian Grand Duke and saying, "This is something we must have", and turning to the taxpayer carrying his purse on a cushion and ordering him to pay for it. It may be that the Government in economic terms are right, probably by mistake and due to inefficiency, to have run us out of smokeless fuel at this point of time.
Several newspapers have said on this subject that it is a question of how much we are prepared to spend. It is not even that. It is a question of how much we are prepared to forgo in the shape of exports. Clean air and other forms of freedom from pollution are extremely expensive to the nation, no matter who pays. I should be interested to know whether the Government have calculated what would be the additional cost of bricks if atmospheric pollution were dealt with in a thorough manner, or whether they have worked out the extra cost of plant in industry as a whole, and the consequent cost to the building industry and in exports. Freedom from pollution is not an inalienable human right, but something very desirable which only a rich country can afford.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: In many ways this has been a pathetic debate. It has been said that the hon. Member who opened for the Opposition spoke for too long. He has also been criticised for the terms of the Motion and for getting the fuels wrong. By trying to make this a party political occasion when everyone says, "Yah boo, we have a better record than you have"—my hon. Friend the Minister of State replied in much the same vein as he was bound to do after that kind of talk—we have missed the whole point of the debate. It is

simply that in this country successive Governments and the great mass of people do not understand this problem in a significant way.
If we are to get down to the bones of this problem, whether we are in Government or out and whether hon. Members opposite are in or out, we have to pose for ourselves such problems for the future that any Government will be in trouble in this business of putting things right and very great changes will have to take place. A certain amount of complacency has been shown. Reference has been made to the killer fogs, and how we have stopped them. But it is not really progress if we have only reached the stage where we have at last been forced, because of thousands of deaths, to stop killing people, bowling them over in the streets.
If I feel very passionately on the matter, it is because for 15 years I was a meteorologist. I know that the very bad conditions occur when there is an inversion. Smoke coming out of chimneys, or anything slightly warm, in the normal process of events rises and disperses in the atmosphere. This is not a particularly good thing to do, because one immediately cuts down sunlight over a wider range. But where there is an inversion, where the air is getting warmer, with height, all this piles down into the lower atmosphere. The Motion is laughable when it speaks of
…smokeless fuel necessary to implement the clean air policy…".
Since when did smokeless fuels give us clean air? All that happens is that in the conditions to which I have just referred the smoke stops sunlight. One does not break the inversion, and the real killer constituent is the sulphurous fumes that then come out of the chimneys and are concentrated in the lower layers.
As a conservationist, I am rather pleased in some ways if there is a shortage of fuel, because what is happening at present is that we are pushing out sulphurous fumes. If the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) disbelieves me, would he rather enter a room filled with smoke fumes or one filled not with smoke fumes but with the kind of atmosphere given off by a coke fire? One will drop dead in that atmosphere much more quickly than in


the smoky place, because that atmosphere is carbon monoxide.
The sad point about the debate was not just the Opposition's criticism of the Government but their failure to go on, take some courage and say what they really mean. It will be a great pity if it is not said tonight, and I shall try, because I believe that if we are to get down to dealing with the problem of having clean air we must go one stage further and say what is the best means of ensuring that our environment is preserved.
One cannot even have a gas fire in one's home unless one has a way of getting out the exhaust fumes. One must have a chimney with a fire above a certain calorific output. The only safe fuel from the environmental point of view is electricity.
I do not criticise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for stirring people up on the matter, because it is a big problem. I will go along with any hon. Member on either side, of whatever party, if he tries to alert people to the dangers that exist. We must reach the position where nobody burns fuel, whether coal or coke, in his open grate. In many ways coke fumes are worse than coal fumes. If we face up to the problem, I believe that we shall be able to tackle the question of the environment.
When I was a meteorologist I was for a time at a little station just outside Cambridge, which is not a great area for pollution. But perhaps I can use a better example of what we mean when we talk about bringing sunlight back to our country areas. I was in North Yorkshire between the North York Moors and the Pennine Hills. One could see 30 miles in each direction, but when the wind went round to 020 we got the smoke down from Middlesbrough and visibility dropped to 1,200 yards. That is the measure of our problem. Immediately it stopped the sunlight getting through, we began to lose natural heating.
If the House in this debate can only congratulate itself and find reason for complacency in the fact that we have just managed to stop killer smog by getting smoke out of the atmosphere—and I have explained the inversion position—and then goes on to demand that we have fuels like coke to put the sulphurous gases in, then this will have been a

lamentable debate indeed and we shall have shown that we ill understand the problems and have so slightly smudged over the surface that we should be ashamed of ourselves. A glorious opportunity has been missed by the Front Bench opposite.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: In this Motion we are critical of two Government Departments. I want to try to puncture the amiable complacency of the Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, by one example from my constituency experience. It is one I touched on when I interrupted him.
I checked this morning what the latest situation is. I was told that there is a delay of eight to nine weeks in the delivery of some solid smokeless fuels. This delay is aggravated by problems of storage which particularly affect old people. I am told that the situation is already as bad as in any winter during the last five or six years. The hon. Gentleman talked about hardship. There is hardship. It is very hard for people who have loyally stuck to home-produced solid fuels instead of changing to other fuels, some of which are imported.
The other Ministry we are charging is the Ministry of Technology. My hon. Friends have already explained the confusion there has been between the Ministry and the Coal Board over production plans for solid smokeless fuels. It is ironic to read what the Paymaster-General is reported in The Times today as having said yesterday. The report reads:
The enlarged Ministry of Technology, Mr. Lever said, was well placed to take account of the diverse interests of coal. All the fuel-producing and nearly all the fuel-consuming industries were now 'under the same roof', as were its regional responsibilities.
Up to now the Ministry of Technology has been complacent both about this problem and about the problem of gas conversion, and we are looking forward to a sign tonight from the Paymaster-General that it is turning over a new leaf.
The conclusion I draw from the debate is that here we have a fairly simple aspect of environmental pollution which is wholly under Government control. They have failed to cope adequately with it, and it is hard for us to take seriously


their more grandiose schemes about the environment. What the problem needs, to quote a phrase used in the last General Election, is action, not words. I have litle hope of getting it from this jaded and incompetent Government, and it is high time for them to go.

9.19 p.m.

Sir John Eden: The short debate has been characterised by an understanding on our part of the seriousness of the position and on the part of the Government by apparent indifference and complete complacency.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, seemed to discount all the evidence of shortages and hardship. He apparently had not heard of any of the troubles which are being experienced by countless numbers of people. I will admit that the main difficulties seem to be concentrated in the North, but they are by no means restricted to that area. There are serious shortages of solid smokeless fuels in London and they are known to exist also to a quite considerable measure in the Southampton area, for example, where merchants are experiencing difficulty in getting supplies of the fuels they want.
There are any number of Press reports with which we have all been regaled, all of us, that is, apparently, with the exception of Ministers, about the individual difficulties which have arisen as a result of the failure of supplies of effective alternative solid smokeless fuels. This was made clear by the Chairman of the Keighley Health and Welfare Committee. He is reported in the Yorkshire Post of December last year as saying:
We put the full blame for this"—
that is, the shortage—
on the Government. If the Government planners in this Department are not prepared to see that the proper type of fuels are available to the authorities then let it be on their heads. As far as we can see it is just another piece of gross Socialist mismanagement.
In the same newspaper in January of this year examples were given of the difficulties facing coal merchants, in a number of major cities, in finding adequate supplies of solid smokeless fuel and of the consequent hardship this was imposing on old and sick people. The

National Federation of Coal Merchants, in York, took the unusual step of imposing its own form of rationing. In Leeds, the public health department set up an information centre to advise householders and merchants on how to get alternative supplies of smokeless fuels. In Hull, the city council decided on 8th January to ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government to relax the city's smoke control orders for six months.
Then there was the case, reported at the end of last month, of a Mrs. Kaye, of Barnsley, who said that people in her area were reduced to burning old boots because they could not get smokeless fuel. She is then reported as asking the manager of the National Coal Board's Coal Product Division:
Can you tell me when in the foreseeable future there will be plenty of every kind of smokeless fuel? Can you give me a date in the 'seventies that I can ask people to wait for?
The answer was:
No I can't. It depends on too many factors.
There are countless other examples that could be given of the difficulties that individuals are experiencing. The amazing thing about the situation is that the Government are blithely unaware that it exists.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman has quoted a Yorkshire Post report in relation to my constituency. I, too, read the report. I have never had one complaint from any member of my constituency about this. I wrote to the Coal Board about this and it denied that there was a problem.

Sir J. Eden: Probably the hon. Gentleman's constituents find it more profitable to complain to me. I have had complaints from all over the country.
This has been developing for some time. Lord Robens warned the Government of the developing shortage more than five years ago, but my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) was assured as long ago as May, 1968, that shortages were unlikely. In December of that year Lord Robens accused the Government of "acting with two faces". As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) has said, the question of supplies has not been properly organised.
In December, 1969, the Paymaster-General was quite calmly saying, in answer to a Question, that domestic supplies of smokeless fuel would be adequate this winter although there might be local difficulties over some grades in severe weather. That is such an understatement that it is almost untypical of him. He seems to have had no regard for the report of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, or for the concern which had been expressed there in September of that year.
In Appendix II of that report the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power answered the chairman's fears about the likelihood of a shortage of coke for the domestic consumer:
As you know, we expect the position to be reasonably satisfactory this winter so far as solid smokeless fuels are concerned, and we will certainly be watching the position thereafter.
The only comfort is that the Government have at least been watching the position, but they have not kept the House informed of the result of their examination. What has been said by the right hon. Gentleman and by the Parliamentary Secretary in answer to a series of Questions has been considerably at variance with the reports that have come from the areas which I have mentioned and from the merchants who have to deal with the position on the ground.
Of course the Government must watch the situation, and so much local authorities in the areas which are to be designated smokless zones or for which orders have been made. The Minister of State emphasised that a check has to be made with the Solid Smokeless Fuels Federation to ensure that adequate supplies of solid smokeless fuel will be available in the area if an order is made.
This procedure was fully underlined in the White Paper, Cmnd. 2231, published by the last Conservative Government in December, 1963. That White Paper forecast the sort of situation in which we now find ourselves. It stated that by 1970 the total shortage of fuels for improved and unimproved grates may be about 2 million tons a year.
The position is not as bad as that, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us accurate figures of his assessment of the present position. That report

also stated that local authorities must have regard to the actual position of alternative solid smokeless fuels. This procedure was encouraged as a result of the Conservatives' Clean Air Act.
The present situation has resulted from several developments. The area gas boards have changed over from coal to oil for the manufacture of gas, there has been the advent of North Sea gas during the last five years, there have been the exceptional boom conditions in the steel industry, and other factors to which I will refer later. This is not something which has happened overnight; the picture has been clear for many years. Admittedly, it has reached more acute proportions within the last 18 months.
It was for this reason that the National Coal Board made no fewer than 29 proposals for open-cast workings between July, 1967, and July, 1968. But, as the House will know, the Government attempted to put a total ban on opencast workings and denied to the board the opportunity to take advantage of a marketing situation which was developing before its very eyes. Only during the last year has the Ministry woken up to the fact that further open-cast workings are necessary, and 15 or so were authorised. Now, during the last few months, a number of other open-cast workings are being developed.
The coke situation involves international difficulties. Again, there are shortages, but they are not peculiar to this country. There is a worldwide demand for coke, primarily due to the boom in the steel industry, but the Coal Board and the Government have been aware of the situation. The board for years has been engaged on research into new blending techniques, and it is planning for new plant to come into operation shortly at Immingham.
This is a developing situation. As long ago as the end of last year the chairman of the board reached the point of saying:
I do not think that it is physically possible to fill the whole of the gap.
Yet on 26th January this year the Minister was assuring one of his hon. Friends that there is as yet no shortage of coke. This is a further example of complacency and failure to recognise the danger signals


as they appear, signals which were quite apparent to everybody else engaged in this business in any way at all.
The rundown of coke production in the gas industry has been going on for 10 years or more. The Billingham process has been with us for a long time. The figures of production available to the Government show clearly how, step by step, from 1962 onwards the amount of gas-coke production had fallen from 9 million tons to the present figure of about 3 million tons. It is likely to decline from that figure by as much as 1 million tons a year, until it finishes altogether. This situation has been going on for many years and is one of which the producers of alternative smokeless fuels as well as the Ministry and the Government should have taken full cognisance.
The situation was certainly clear to the private producers. As the House knows, there are a number of private producers of solid smokeless fuels. From 1964, they increased their total production by as much as 69 per cent. Over that same period the Coal Board increased its total production by about 36 per cent. The board have for long been aware that it has special responsibilities in this matter. As long ago as 1962 the Chairman of the Coal Board, in evidence before the Select Committee, said:
…we have got a public duty to provide smokeless fuel in view of the Clean Air Acts, because there is no one else who would tackle this but us".
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) of the difficulties being experienced by the board. I do not in any way want to mock the board's efforts to try to find a good alternative solid smokeless fuel, but at what cost have they been researching into this matter? Tens of millions of pounds have been expended.
It is impossible to find out how much money has been put into research and development by Bronowski and others on behalf of the Coal Board. The Bronowski "bullet" story is a miserable and costly one. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who started it?"] An hon. Gentleman asks, "Who started it", but what matters is that it has been going on for so long.

It is costing the taxpayers millions of pounds, year after year, without producing anything effective.
This is an extremely difficult process, yet the private producers have had to gear their increasing manufacturing facilities to the forecast of the Coal Board's own production. It was anticipated that by the end of last year Homefire would be operating at the rate of 600,000 tons a year. My information is that it has hardly exceeded 30,000 to 50,000 tons a year. This is a dismal picture and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will examine the situation very closely indeed.
My regret about the situation is genuine. The Coal Board was offered on a plate one of the finest marketing opportunities ever, and, regrettably, it has failed to take full advantage of it. It has the certainty of growing demand, the Clean Air Acts and the falling off in gas-coke production.
That is the picture today. It is not a happy one and Ministers should not be sanguine about it. It requires further examination, not least of all in the investment of large sums of public money to produce a project which so far has not been available on the market.

Mr. Ellis: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that burning smokeless fuel—coke, for example—will give us clean air?

Sir J. Eden: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which he made graphically in his speech. This is a step in the right direction.
Our first concern—and we have all been concerned about this—is getting rid of the smoke from the air. There is a great deal more still to be done, for there are more difficult and dangerous substances operating in the atmosphere which will have to be taken out. The cost will undoubtedly increase, but let us first be sure that the present legislation is operated effectively and efficiently.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House just how he sees the position. What is the position primarily that he sees developing over the year ahead? What is likely to happen in 1971? A number of questions were put to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester. Incidentally, my hon. Friend's appointment had nothing to do with the Prime Minister. It arose out


of the Report of the Select Committee on the Natural Environment Research Council. We saw the significance of this development, which grew naturally out of our concern in the whole of this field, as was evidenced by the Conservation Clean Air Act.
The question I want to put to the Minister is: how does he see the picture developing in 1971? There is a shortfall of solid smokeless fuel of 500,000 tons. It has already been forecast that by next year the gap will have doubled to 1 million tons. What steps do the Government intend to take? To defer smoke control orders? Is that what they are planning to do? If they do not intend to do that, what steps will they take to try to relieve the hardship of the individual who wishes to continue burning solid smokeless fuel, who is tied to solid fuel but cannot obtain the alternatives he needs in the smokeless zone?
I believe that it is the personal situation which needs greater emphasis. Somehow or other this has escaped the attention of Ministers. They have been able to brush us off every time with the answer that there are only one or two little local difficulties. But those local difficulties spell hardship for individuals. What future do the Government hold out for them?
All hon. Members are in favour of measures to improve the environment and of the need to promote action to counter pollution. The Prime Minister has freely preached about it in this country, in the United States and no doubt in other countries which he visits. But due to lack of co-ordination between Departments progress is being postponed. That is another example of the gap between promise and performance which has been a feature of his Administration.

9.40 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Harold Lever): I have to confess to the House that I am sadder this evening than I was when I awoke this morning. I accept that all hon. Members have an equal concern to improve the environment of our country, in the air, in the rivers, on the roads, and even on the question of noise. I do not think that there is any division between us on that.
What saddens me is to find myself winding up a three-hour debate, with a

Motion of censure on the Government, because of some supposed shortage of smokeless fuels, compelling the abandonment in a significant manner of the Government's smokeless zone policy. In fact, of course, all that we have been listening to is a series of generalised exaggerations of grievances, not based upon hard fact, or even upon solid fuel. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Worcestershire South (Sir G. Nabarro) because, once again, with his candour and knowledge he reminded his own Front Bench of the fact that there are smokeless fuels other than solid smokeless fuels, a fact of which they appear to be in complete ignorance, if we are to judge from the Motion.

Sir G. Nabarro: That is unfair. I said that the Front Bench spokesman, the Minister of State, might have delineated in his speech the five categories of smokeless fuel—from coal, from coke, oil, gas and electricity.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson rose—

Mr. Lever: I ought to pause for a moment before giving way, but I shall, nevertheless, do so now.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber when I raised this matter. This day I went to a coal merchant in London and asked for Homefire, one of the most important of the National Coal Board's products, and was told that I could not have any for at least two months.

Mr. Lever: I understand that the hon. Gentleman could not have that article for two months, but it does not follow that he could not have smokeless solid fuel for two months. It means only that he could not have the particularly choice blend which is in very short supply in this area. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that that kind of point substantiates the extraordinary charade to which we have been subjected of pretending that a minor customer inconvenience of that kind justifies a three-line Whip, and a Motion of censure, he will have to think again and get something more solid.

Dr. Winstanley: If the right hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to the days when he used to sniff the polluted air of Cheetham, which is now not as


polluted as it used to be, I am sure he will agree that the only way in which he could get his constituents to cooperate in the clean air scheme was by making it convenient to do so. This is the whole point of the shortage.

Mr. Lever: The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) was relying on a different point. He found a justification for this debate in the fact that he could not get a particular branded mark of solid smokeless fuel. He feels that this justifies an occasion such as that to which the House is being treated, with a three-line Whip on both sides. He is seeking to exaggerate these minor matters into major matters of party political controversy.
I do not want to go through all the points that have been raised. Some are a matter for derision, rather than for argument. The hon. Gentleman wanted to justify this strange debate by the sad tale of the old lady who suffered acute hardship and was driven to burning old boots. I do not pretend to be an expert—in fact I am rather new to this subject—but, as far as I know, boots cannot be regarded as solid smokeless fuel. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that if he hears of such misfortunes again, and if the lady is determined to take the plunge and use smoke-creating fuels such as old boots, she might as well burn domestic coal.
I want to try to put the whole problem in perspective in a few words and let hon. Members on both sides of the House who are fair-minded judge whether one can really traipse into the Division Lobby over the position that has arisen.
Both Governments, the previous one and this one, have been pushing forward as fast as is technically and economically possible to reduce the smoke in the atmosphere and to increase the smokeless areas. This programme had two wings, so to say. One was to assist the conversion and to make available all kinds of smokeless fuel, solid and other, the list of which was so conveniently enunciated a moment or two ago by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. The population has gradually burned less and less smoke-creating fuel. That is so over the whole country, irrespective of

whether there is a smokeless zone or anything of that kind, and it is much to be welcomed.
Side by side with this general advance in reducing smoke, the 100 per cent. areas in which it has been forbidden to burn anything but smokeless fuel have greatly increased. Orders were made, as we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in the Conservative Government—not as fast as we have made, not covering as many users per annum, but I do not want to make a special point of this. We would expect a better performance from this Government than from the previous one, and I do not want to score any cheap debating points. I am not questioning the sincerity and urgency with which the Conservative Government, to the best of their ability, pushed on with this policy.
Then there is the difficult problem of estimating this development to smokelessness in terms of burning which particular fuel. It is very hard indeed to forecast. When there is a great changeover to smokeless fuels it is not known which one is going to be the favourite as the demand rises. So if solid smokeless fuel is to be kept in balance it must be possible to forecast the demand for that particular smokeless fuel and also the supply. Both of these are very hard to forecast because, apart from the domestic consumer of smokeless solid fuel, there are industries which use it and their exact demand is very hard indeed to forecast.
The difficulty of forecasting this results in the situation that we have this winter, in which we have a somewhat tight supply—not the great hardships that have been retailed to us this evening, not a great shortage, not a lack of co-ordination, but roughly supply in balance with demand. The only difficulty is that in order to be sure that the right supplies are at the right place at the right time, so that when the hon. Gentleman the Member for New Forest asks for a bag of his particular choice it shall be there, there has to be a surplus. What is missing is that surplus. There is no shortage, but the surplus, which would make it possible to have an even supply of these smokeless solid fuels available all over the country, is missing.
The idea that there is not enough solid smokeless fuel to cover the smokeless


zones is too ludicrous to be worthy of more than a moment's comment. If we focused the supply of solid smokeless fuels on the smokeless zones there would be a glut of them. For the reason I gave in opening, we have to cover the whole range of the country. There are what have been referred to as little local difficulties; that is to say, some relatively minor shortages. Since there are alternative fuels available, many people simply cope with the situation if there is a temporary shortfall of the fuel of their choice by using gas, electricity or some other smokeless fuel.

Mr. Emery: I thank the Minister for giving way. Would he call it a little local shortage when the Ministry of Housing has to say that it will approve no more smoke-controlled zones until April 1971? Is that a local difficulty?

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating, falsely in my view, the result of the next election. The present Minister of Housing has said nothing of the kind, and the hon. Gentleman has not yet been authorised to replace him.
To get the measure of the difficulty, there are 350 local authorities where smokeless zones prevail. Of those, 16 have asked to have their orders suspended because if they were 100 per cent. enforced some people, though not everyone, in the area might be driven to be without fuel or to burn some of the hon. Gentleman's old boots. As a result, these local authorities have asked and received permission to ease the 100 per cent. enforcement of their smokeless zones.
When the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) opened the debate, he appeared to enjoy himself so much in making a generalised rodomontade about the situation that he almost justified his speech. But then, as Jane Austen somewhat primly remarks:
The pleasantness of an occupation by no means evinces its propriety.
In his ebullience, the hon. Gentleman tried to paint a picture of 16 otherwise clean areas, not mentioning the 350 where the orders have not been changed, which would be belching forth black smoke from every point. Nothing could be further from the truth. All that happens where there has been a temporary suspension of 100 per cent. enforcement

is that the great majority of people in the area have smokeless fuel and will go on using it but, rather than inflict hardship on those who cannot find it and to ease the position, they have been granted permission to burn any smoke-creating fuel that they choose, including those suggested by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden).
We would have had a surplus of this fuel, in spite of the difficulties of forecasting demand and supply, were it not for the technical difficulties which occurred with the plant of the N.C.B. The hon. Gentleman complains that the board tried. I am not sure whether he complains that it tried and it cost money or that it failed. But it is enough to say that this effort to develop smokeless fuels further was started under a Conservative Government and continued under the present Government.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite should have a little sense of proportion in this matter. In order to have no difficulty over supplies, one must forecast both demand and supply, "demand" meaning not demand for smokeless fuel, as the hon. Gentleman seems to think, but demand for solid smokeless fuel. Some people will go to gas and oil and others will use electricity.
Even the 1960 White Paper of the Conservative Government recognised that it was difficult to forecast these demands and supplies. That did not deter right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite from doing so, but, in doing so, they proved the justice of their original promise. They forecast an 11½ million tons consumption by 1965 and a production of 12 million tons. Those figures would comfortably have given the half million tons of surplus which, if we had had it, would have avoided this sort of debate. The only trouble is that, instead of 12 million tons, there was a production of 8 million tons in 1965, a massive shortfall of 4 million tons. Fortunately for the Tories, there was a symmetry in the wrongness of their forecasting. The consumption of 11½ million tons failed to materialise as well, and demand was only 8 million tons. In other words, they were 3½ million tons short in their projection of consumption and 4 million tons short of their production forecast.
The hon. Gentleman complains of our forecasting 200,000 or 300,000 tons either


way. This forecasting was 4 million tons either way.
In fairness, the Conservative Government did not seriously try to bring about the 12 million tons to match the anticipated consumption. Had they done so, we would have had disused, dilapidated and exceedingly extensive works at great cost brought into being to supply this imaginary demand, and vast stores of unused smokeless solid fuel.
I wonder what would have happened if the consumption that they predicted had arrived, because the only production available was 3½ million tons short of the tonnage that they anticipated they would have to meet. In fact, consumption has remained steady at around g million tons. We would have had this little marginal difficulty overcome but for one or two factors in addition to the Coal Board's technical difficulties in getting its plant into full production. If the board's plant had been in full production we would have had a handsome surplus over all requirements of 700,000 tons.
In addition, there has been the steel boom. The hon. Gentleman referred to the 1963 White Paper where the error in forecasting had been reduced to 2 million tons wrong—

Mr. Emery: Mr. Emery rose—

Mr. Lever: Let me finish.
The White Paper forecast a shortage of 1·6 million tons. Though I have read the White Paper, I cannot see what the Conservative Government were doing to meet this expected shortage, had it arrived. It did not arrive. One hopeful thing on which they were relying was that the steel consumption of coke would be much reduced. It has increased, and any expectation of easement on that account would have been absolutely misplaced had the Conservative Government been able to meet their forecast.

Mr. Emery: Mr. Emery rose—

Mr. Lever: I am nearly at the end of my speech.
Let us face it. Tory forecasts—I am not blaming them for this—were wildly wrong. I would not say this if it were not so. It is plain from the White Paper.

Mr. Emery: Mr. Emery rose—

Mr. Lever: I have given the figures, and I have not got too long. I have told the hon. Gentleman that in 1963 the Tories were predicting a consumption of over 11 million tons.

Mr. Emery: No.

Mr. Lever: The main point is to show the difficulties of forecasting. I have quoted verbatim the figures given in the 1963 White Paper of the Conservative Government.
I now turn to 1970 and 1971. There is no hardship, and the Coal Board has undertaken to see that there will be no hardship. There are difficulties. I should like to see an easier supply. There is a tight position. That tight position may recur again next winter. I cannot give predictions about that. There is no ground for panic, still less for the party opposite to excite a sense of panic or anything that is calculated to suggest that hoarding or anything like that is necessary.
There will probably be a tight situation next winter. I have not got the forecasting capacity of those who advised the Conservative Government in their White Paper, so I will not attempt to forecast how the weather will be next winter, nor how many people will use gas rather than smokeless solid fuel, nor will I venture into the range of unknowables about which I would have to know to give an accurate forecast of the balance. But I can tell the House that there will be no hardship this winter and there will be no hardship next winter. There will be a tight situation on supply for this winter and the situation next winter may be of the same order.
I ask the House to reject the Motion. It is really bandying about generalisations on lack of co-ordination, failure of policy, and matters of that kind. The criticism amounts to a mere exploitation of grievance without suggesting any kind of remedy whatever.

Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire): Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Questions, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—
That this House deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to ensure the

supplies of smokeless fuel necessary to implement the clean air policy; particularly in view of the stress laid on environmental pollution in recent Ministerial speeches.

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 305.

Division No. 58.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Foster, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fry, Peter
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Astor, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marten, Neil


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maudlin?, nt. Hn. Reginald


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Clover, Sir Douglas
Mawby, Ray


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Balniel, Lord
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Batsford, Brian
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Grant, Anthony
Monro, Hector


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Film)
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Biffen, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Biggs-Davison, John
Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Han, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Black, Sir Cyril
Hail-Davis, A. G. F.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Murton, Oscar


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Neave, Airey


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Braine, Bernard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nott, John


Brewis, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Onslow, Cranley


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hastings, Stephen
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hay, John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bryan, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Hill, J. E. B.
Pardoe, John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Peel, John


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Peyton, John


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Pounder, Rafton


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Channon, H. P. G.
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chataway, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clark, Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Johnson Smith, G. (E, Crinstead)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cordle, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jopling, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder, F. P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Royle, Anthony


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Currie, G. B. H.
Kimball, Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott-Hopkins, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lambton, Viscount
Sharples, Richard


Dean, Paul
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lane, David
Silvester, Frederick


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Hott, Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Doughty, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Speed, Keith


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Eden, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Summers, Sir Spencer


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tapsell, Peter


Emery, Peter
Mac Arthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley
Temple, John M.


Farr, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fisher, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy




Tilney, John
Walters, Dennis
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)
Woodnutt, Mark


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene
Worsley, Marcus


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Weatherill, Bernard
Wright, Esmond


Vickers, Dame Joan
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Younger, Hn. George


Waddington, David
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Wiggin, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Jasper More.


Wall, Patrick
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dickens, James
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)


Albu, Austen
Dobson, Ray
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Alldritt, Walter
Driberg, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Allen, Scholefield
Dunn, James A,
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Anderson, Donald
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipton)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Ashley, Jack
Eadie, Alex
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Edelman, Maurice
Judd, Frank


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Edwards, Robert (Bliston)
Kelley, Richard


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kenyon, Clifford


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Ellis, John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
English, Michael
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Barnes, Michael
Ennals, David
Kerr, Russell (Feitham)



Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)



Barnett, Joel
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lawson, George


Baxter, William
Fernyhough, E.
Ledger, Ron


Beaney, Alan
Finch, Harold
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bence, Cyril
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Lee, John (Reading)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Binns, John
Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bishop, E. S.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lipton, Marcus


Blackburn, F.
Ford, Ben
Lomas, Kenneth


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Forrester, John
Loughlin, Charles


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fowler, Gerry
Luard, Evan


Booth, Albert
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Boston, Terence
Freeson, Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Boyden, James
Gardner, Tony
McBride, Neil


Bradley, Tom
Garrett, W. E.
McCann, John


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ginsburg, David
MacColl, James


Brooks, Edwin
Golding, John
MacDermot, Niall


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Macdonald, A. H.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McElhone, Frank


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McGuire, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Gregory, Arnold
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackie, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackintosh, John P.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Cunter, Rt. Hn. R, J,
Maclennan, Robert


Cant, R. B.
Hamiling, William
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Carmichael, Neil
Hannan, William
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Harper, Joseph
McNamara, J. Kevin


Chapman, Donald
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Coe, Denis
Haseldine, Norman
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Roy
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Conlan, Bernard
Hazell, Bert
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Manuel, Archie


Crawshaw, Richard
Henig, Stanley
Mapp, Charles


Cronin, John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Marks, Kenneth


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hilton, W. S.
Marquand, David


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hobden, Dennis
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Dalyell, Tam
Horner, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Maxwell, Robert


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howie, W.
Mendelson, John


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Huckfield, Leslie
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Delargy, Hugh
Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William


Dell, Edmund
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Mill)
Moonman, Eric


Dempsey, James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dewar, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jeger, George (Goole)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)







Morris, John (Aberavon)
Rankin, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Moyle, Roland
Rees, Merlyn
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Mulley, Dt. Hn. Frederick
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thornton, Ernest


Murray, Albert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tomney, Frank


Near, Harold
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Tuck, Raphael


Newens, Stan
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Norwood, Christopher
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Varley, Eric G.


Ogden Eric
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


O'Halloran, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wallace, George


O'Malley, Brian
Roebuck, Roy
Watkins, David (Consett)


Oram, Bert
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Orbach, Maurice
Rose, Paul
Weitzman, David


Orme, Stanley
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wellbeloved, James


Oswald, Thomas
Ryan, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Whitaker, Ben


Padley, Walter
Sheldon, Robert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Whitlock, William


Paget, R. T.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wilkins, W. A.


Palmer, Arthur
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N 'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N. E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Park, Trevor
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Pavitt, Laurence
Slater, Joseph
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Small, William
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Snow, Julian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Pentland, Norman
Spriggs, Leslie
Winnick, David


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Woof, Robert


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John



Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Price, William (Rugby)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Probert, Arthur
Swain, Thomas
Mr. James Hamilton.


Randall, Harry
Taverne, Dick

Orders of the Day — AWARDS AND SETTLEMENTS

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move,
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Awards and Settlements (Temporary Continuation of Standstill) (No. 3) Order 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 1708), dated 1st December 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be annulled.
This order came into effect on 6th December and it is due to expire in a few days' time. Some hon. Members may be wondering—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Too many prayers are going on at the moment.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Some hon. Members may be wondering why we are praying against this order tonight. We are doing so on a question of principle
It is well known that we are against the incomes policy in general, a policy which time and again has been shown to be ineffectual. It is also because we feel that in this case there has been an unwarranted discrimination against those concerned. We regard the order as yet another example of the illogicality and unfairness of the right hon. Lady the First Secretary's incomes policy, which hits at the weaker elements in our society and so often flees in the face of realities of the big battalions.
I should like to explain briefly what happened in this case, because it is important that we should know the attitude of the right hon. Lady in these matters, especially as she has given rather strong hints that the powers still in existence probably will not be used again. She might have shown a little grace by dropping the order as a gesture of good will towards industrial harmony.
Back in July an agreement was made between the Association of Film Laboratory Employers and the Association of the Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians, to whom I shall refer as the film technicians, for the purposes of simplicity. The agreement provided that with effect from 1st July last year there would be improvements in pay and conditions for the technical, general and clerical grade employees. It directly affected about 2,400 staff employed by the

four member companies of the Association of Film Laboratory Employers and indirectly about 750 staff working for the remaining nine companies in the industry which are not members of the employers' association.
It is important to explain that the film processing industry undertakes the developing and printing of film, principally for cinema and television, and is, therefore, a vital if unsung sector of the communications industry.
The agreement was signed on 20th July, and four days later the employers were called before the Department of Employment and Productivity and requested to give further information. As an outcome of their meeting the right hon. Lady referred the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board, that friendless body soon to be absorbed by the new brain child of bureaucracy, the Commission for Industry and Manpower. She then made a standstill direction on the member companies. It is worth noting that all the non-member companies agreed quite voluntarily to observe the standstill.
Naturally, the First Secretary's action caused a good deal of hard feeling. I remember reading in The Times last August that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), whom we are pleased to see with us, felt so strongly on the matter that he had agreed to refer it to the Ombudsman on the grounds of the mismanagement by the Department of Employment and Productivity of this pay award. We know that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have always opposed the policy, as we have opposed it on this side, though for quite different reasons, and we respect his opposition.
In the same news item that mentioned the hon. Gentleman, Mr. George Elvin, president of the film technicians' association, was quoted as saying that because of inept management by the D.E.P. his members had received increases of various amounts from the employers, and there would be no consistency between one film laboratory and another.
The terms of the agreement are all important to this matter. The industry had previously had a major revision of pay and conditions two years before, in August, 1967, and that settlement covered the intervening two years. Last July's


agreement provided broadly for an increase of £1 2s. 6d. a week in minimum rates from 1st July last year and a further increase of £1 5s. in minimum rates from 1st July this year; plus a reduction of hours; an increase in hours for which premium rates are payable; improved holiday entitlement; continuation of a cost of living sliding scale; and an assurance of co-operation by the union and its members with management in achieving increased productivity by better mobility and utilisation of labour.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The facts related by the hon. Gentleman about the agreement are quite correct, except that the sliding scale arrangements were eliminated from the agreement.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps if he is fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair he might like to elaborate on that further.
The Prices and Incomes Board reported in November, and, in accordance with the Act of 1967, extended by the Act of 1968, the right hon. Lady laid before Parliament the order we are praying against tonight, one which forbids implementation of the agreement until 7th February, in a few days' time.
The board's report is interesting. It states that the minimum rate of increase from last July would represent 8·2 per cent. for the lowest paid to 3·7 per cent. for the highest paid on the current minimum rates, and that the increase from next July would represent rises ranging from 9·1 per cent. to 4·2 per cent. on the same basis. According to the Board, the overall cost of the agreement would amount in the first year to 6·3 per cent. and in the second year to a further 5·7 per cent. of the industry's current total wage bill.

Sir Douglas Glover: Must the two figures, 8·2 per cent and 9·1 per cent., be added together, giving a total of 17 per cent. plus?

Mr. Dudley Smith: The calculation can be made either way. One can add them together to get the future situation, because these people still have some way to go before they get their actual rise—I will give some examples to show that others have received rises in excess of

this amount—or one can take the agreement made last July and regard that as the one that would have been implemented but for the interference of the right hon. Lady.
The employers have a good deal to say about this report. They do not claim that the agreement which they made fulfils the criteria for incomes policy as laid down in the then current White Paper, Cmnd. 3590, which provided for a ceiling of 3½ per cent. applied at the annual rate of wages increases. They do argue, however—I believe convincingly—that the constant fluctuation in work-flow in this industry and the vital change from black and white to the more complex colour film processes—we must bear in mind that television has gone over exclusively to colour, though not too many people are able to receive it yet—and the need to maintain speed and quality of output all make it impossible to quantify improvements in productivity. Significantly, they feel that to have made an agreement which attempted to specify changes in working methods would have tended to reduce, rather than increase, efficiency.
Surprisingly, the P.I.B. apparently accepts that in an industry in which rapid technical advances are made, and in which a good standard of co-operation exists between management and workers, it would be harmful to conclude an agreement which specified changes in working practices in return for which pay increases would be granted.
The P.I.B. also accepts that the film technicians have made a valuable contribution to the efficiency and productivity of the industry. The report also notes that the union does not contest the employers' right to fix manning scales for new plant, that the union has agreed reductions in established manning levels and does not impose restrictions on output, that there are no demarcation disputes and that the union has been willing to guarantee continuity of production during afternoon and late shifts.
Most important, the board agrees that
… there has been a continuous rise in productivity over recent years…and…productivity and efficiency in film processing are increasing".
In this way, the board adds, the industry appears to have been able partially to offset increased costs resulting from


changing conditions by increased efficiency. In other words, the industry has an admirable bill of health and a prospectus of which any industry could be proud.
Now comes the crunch. The Board considers that the film technicians inability to quantify increases in their productivity, which I have explained, qualifies them for the treatment that they have received; and it recommends the introduction of control procedures, the use by companies of method analysis techniques and the improvement of training as ways by which the industry would be able to improve the effectiveness of its future operations. The Board puts most weight on the fact that the pay settlement would lead directly to higher prices and that the cost-of-living sliding scale arrangements were to be continued.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Are these people represented by a big union, or is it a small one which can exercise little pressure on the Government? Would my hon. Friend agree that there is no longer any prices and incomes policy under the present Government?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The first point of the hon. Gentleman's observation was in order. The second part was out of order.

Mr. Dudley Smith: This is a small union, but it has almost 100 per cent. membership and is representative of the whole industry. It is a forward-looking, enlightened union. Being small, its voice is comparatively weak, and as a consequence the right hon. Lady picks on it.
We see the result before us now. We have an extraordinary situation—we have a technical industry, modern and forward-looking with productivity on the increase and yet it still does not satisfy the criteria of the White Paper because it cannot quantify its productivity—in the eyes of the Prices and Incomes Board. We cannot talk about productivity until it has happened.
Other people have their rises by making golden promises about productivity which have no guarantee whatever behind them. This agreement affects about 3,150 staff, not a vast number. The increases in the minimum rate range from 3·7 per cent. to 8·2 per cent. from July

last and from 4·2 per cent. to 9·1 per cent. from July next.
This contrasts very strangely with the 1·1 million building workers who have secured 11 per cent. this month, 6·2 per cent. by next November and 8 per cent. by June, 1971. Take the 60,000 gas workers who have had a rise of 14 per cent. on their basic wage, or the 28,000 water supply workers who from last December had 15 per cent. on their earnings and 21 per cent. on their basic, or the electricity non-manual workers—

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, to help me prepare my reply to the debate? Will I be given the opportunity to reply in detail to these points?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing out of order at the moment.

Hon. Members: Chicken.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair needs no encouragement. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that this particular standstill should not take place because some other workers have had something much better. It is in order as long as he does not pursue the examples in detail.

Mr. Dudley Smith: We look forward to the hon. Gentleman's reply. He has quite a lot to reply to.
Take the electrical non-manual workers who have had 10 per cent. plus improved conditions. There are 50,000 of those compared with these 3,150 film technicians. Let me also mention the members of the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians' Union, who recently accepted an increase of between £4 7s. 6d. and £5 7s. 6d. a week. No one expects that they will be called upon to justify their increases. This means a basic rise of 20 per cent. for many of the 300 involved.
To quote the Economist of 24th January, a union official concerned in that settlement said:
We gave nothing in return and did not even bother with the pretence of a productivity fig leaf.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not pursue his analogies in too much detail.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I would submit that the case before us underlines the


ineffectiveness of the Government's present incomes policy. It is a policy which picks off the weak like the film technicians at the expense of the powerful. It is a policy which makes an example of a smaller group of workers, because the right hon. Lady thinks that she can get away with it without retaliation. This policy is shown to be a hollow sham and a shabby pretence. That is why I invite my hon. Friends tonight to show what a mockery it is by going into the Division Lobby against the Government.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I intervene briefly merely to mention two points. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) is quite correct in saying that on 17th August I referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration the whole question of the agreement. I was asked to do so by George Elvin, the president of the trade union to which he referred. I have received the following reply from the Parliamentary Commissioner:
The conclusion of my investigation is, therefore, that there has been no maladministration by the Department of Employment and Productivity in connection with the reference of the agreement in question to the N.B.P.I., and I cannot uphold the complaint.
My only other comment on the hon Members' speech is that it adds still further to the confusion about the attitude of the Opposition to wages. The right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) frequently refers to wage increases which are being negotiated and agreed. He complains that they are very high, and implies that they have a weakening effect upon our economy generally. The speech of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington is confusing, because I am not clear whether the hon. Member is complaining at the insufficiency of this agreement and saying that it is a bad one because it does not meet the levels attained elsewhere.

Mr. Dudley Smith: As far as I can judge, the agreement is a perfectly good and honourable one. I am complaining only because the right hon. Lady the First Secretary of State picked on this particular agreement. As I said, she has picked on a weak union as opposed to the big battalions who get away with far larger increases.

Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Member. That takes us to the next stage.
I may assume from that that the Opposition's argument is that the other settlements are too high—

Mr. Dudley Smith: No, not necessarily.

Mr. Atkinson: The Opposition's attitude to these agreements needs to be made clear. Do they mention them because they are good agreements, or because they are too high?

Mr. Burden: Would not it be better if the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) explained the Government's attitude, and why the Government picked out this agreement and allowed the others to go through?

Mr. Atkinson: I understand that the Opposition have moved this Prayer because they are critical of this reference, but comparisons were made in the speech which stated the Opposition's attitude.
I am merely trying to elucidate from the Opposition what is their attitude towards the other agreements. They compare this agreement with other agreements which they say are high. The right hon. Member for Mitcham has often complained that these settlements are excessively high.

Mr. Burden: On a point of order. Would not my hon. Friend be out of order if he dealt with agreements other than the one which we are discussing on this order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman, so far, is seeking to relate his remarks to the order before us. If he departed from that he would, of course, be out of order.

Mr. Atkinson: The right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) has often complained about the excessive character of many agreements which have recently been negotiated. I gather that the argument being advanced by the Opposition is that many of these settlements are too high.
I become confused over all these references and comparisons. We hear time and again from hon. Members opposite a long shopping list of recent wage agreements. They are trotted out at regular intervals and there are gibes at


the Government for allowing them to go through. They are complaining that they are too high and are harmful to the economy. They are complaining about high wages.

Mr. Robert Carr: The hon. Gentleman keeps on referring to wage settlements which he claims that I, on behalf of the Opposition, have condemned. I am not aware of any to which he could be referring. He and his hon. Friends should know very well by now that from the moment when the statutory incomes policy was introduced we opposed it in principle, both on Second Reading and in Committee; and I believe that we have prayed against every single order of this kind as a matter of principle because we do not believe that a Government should attempt to control wage increases by statutory methods.

Mr. Atkinson: But has not the right hon. Gentleman's case been that, because of the introduction of an incomes policy, wages have been forced unnecessarily high from his side's point of view?
I am grateful for that clarification. I assume from it that the Opposition are not opposed to the recent wage agreements and are not critical of the levels which have been established. If that is the case, it is absolute humbug for them in debate after debate to use this shopping list and to make reference to all these wage agreements. I look forward to future debates when we shall no longer have references to recent agreements and the percentage levels involved, because we can now take it that the Opposition are in total agreement with the wage negotiations that are currently in vogue.

10.37 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) is too simple-minded, or is being deliberately so, over this problem. The Opposition's complaint is that, although the Government nailed their colours to the mast over statutory incomes policy and over statutory action in regard to trade union organisation in this country, they have welshed on the whole deal and have run away and left the whole situation in ruins. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) can laugh as much as he likes. He has been making powerful

speeches in the House month after month against the Government's policy. He may have been partly responsible for the Government's running away.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate on this Prayer cannot be a general debate on incomes policy. I was becoming rather anxious about the previous speech, but, fortunately, the hon. Gentleman sat down. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue his line of argument very much further.

Sir D. Glover: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that from now on I will remain strictly in order. But there is a long tradition in the House that when somebody is provoked by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Chair, with its wisdom that is past all understanding, always allows an hon. Member on the other side to reply.
The reason that I oppose this order is that it has now become clear that the Government are now hitting only at the little people. They are not seeking to quarrel with the big battalions. It is the little people, numbering a few thousand, whom they refer to the N.B.P.I. That matter is to be assessed on a productivity basis.
It must be remembered that the public has a strong sense of fairness. The public realise that the Government's policy wreaks of discrimination and unfairness, and that is why I support my right hon. and hon. Friends in their proposal tonight to debate this order and to vote against it.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) asked what principle actuated us on this side of the House. The principle is that we are asked yet again to discuss another Government interference in the processes of collecting bargaining, and that seems to me to be a big enough principle to take me into the Lobby.
In this case the agreement was made in July, 1969, between an employers' association and a trade union. It was signed on 20th July, and on 24th July the employers were called to the Department and asked to give some more information. Ten days later the order was slapped down, and the reference was made to the Prices and Incomes Board.


There was no warning, and no consultation with the trade union. Is that right? This is information which has been given by the president of the union concerned. If that is so, what a way for a Government, of either party, to treat a trade union, much less one which claims to be tied by fraternal strings to the trade union movement.
What did the Prices and Incomes Board find? First, it found that a small number of people—3,150—were involved. Nobody can say that the country's economy would have been shaken if those 3,150 people had been given a wage increase. Second, it found that the pay increase asked for was comparatively moderate—22s. 6d. last July, and 25s. next July. Third, it found that the union concerned was co-operative, that there were no restrictive practices, no manning disputes, that there had been a continuous rise in productivity in recent years and that there were no strikes. One could hardly have a better example of responsible trade unionism.
The criteria which guide the Government are, quite clearly, no longer those set out in the prices and incomes White Papers. To drive a coach and horses through the Government's prices and incomes policy, one has to do three things—be big, be bold, and be bloody-minded! If someone is big, and is supported by, say, 50,000 electricity supply workers, 28,000 water supply workers, or 60,000 gas manual workers, the claim can go through. But if someone is small, and is supported by just 3,000 people, he has had it.
Next, be bold. Do not ask for 22s. 6d. That is ridiculous. Ask for £4 7s. 6d. to £5 7s. 6d., the same as D.A.T.A., and it will go through. Ask for £3, the same as British Road Services workers did, and strike before Christmas when the parcels traffic is going through, and it will be granted. Or, like Fords, ask for £10, and there will be no question of being screwed down to 22s. 6d.; that I can bet the Minister and the hon. Member for Tottenham. So be bold, and do not try to settle for 22s. 6d.
Third, be bloody-minded. Threaten to go on strike, and do not be one of those who co-operate, who have no restrictive practices, and who have a continuous rise in productivity, because if anyone

comes into those categories he will receive no consideration from this Government or from this Minister. Indeed, the right hon. Lady seems to provide a modern equivalent to the saying that a faint heart never won a fair lady. One needs to be the cave man type, coming in with a club. Be bold and bloody-minded, and then the right hon. Lady will give in.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Will Griffiths: I intervene because I have never supported the Government's prices and incomes policy, as many of my hon. Friends know. But the effrontery, the impertinence, of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) tonight is the most breathtaking that I have heard in the House of Commons for many years.
Indeed, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) gave the game away. I thought, when he started to address the House, that he was trying to get my hon. Friends to believe that the topic of conversation in every Conservative Party club was the need for its members, especially its Members in the House of Commons, to rush to the defence of trade unions everywhere—particularly the smaller unions. But he gave the game away when he talked about the big, the bold and the bloody minded at the end of his speech.
I am at one with hon. Gentlemen opposite in opposing the Government's prices and incomes policy, but I have a question to ask them. We are really talking about the cinema technicians and their wage dispute. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your predecessor in the Chair have allowed the debate to range over a wide number of illustrations. The hon. Member for Basingstoke cited numerous cases, with scarcely concealed malice when he talked about the British Road Services employees and how they behaved just before Christmas.

Hon. Members: Oh. Withdraw.

Mr. Griffiths: This is the House of Commons. Hon. Members should not be so thin-skinned about it. It is not unparliamentary to say that the hon. Gentleman introduced a note of malice into his speech. Therefore, I ask the Opposition: will they pursue their policy further in a way which will enable me to report to


my trade union friends outside that, whether they work for British Road Services, for the electricity supply industry or for the gas industry, whatever award they can obtain after joint consultation, they can rely on the absolutely unflinching support in the House of Commons and outside of such well known defenders of trade unionism as the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and the hon. Member for Basingstoke? That is my challenge to hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they are not going to debase the House of Commons, let us have a straight answer.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I think that the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) is debasing the House of Commons. Indeed, if he and his party go out into the country and behave towards trade unionists, particularly these trade unionists, as they have been behaving, they will be looking sadly for support from the unions, not we on this side.
There is absolutely no sense, other than pure victimisation, in the way that the Government are behaving towards these technicians. Let us be frank about the matter. First, the rises that they would have got under the agreement would certainly not have hampered our export trade. We are doing considerable business abroad with some of our television films, and these people are playing a great part in bringing this about. We are moving from the old black and white into the colour era.
I suggest to the Minister, who was instrumental in referring this claim or agreement to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and to the board, that, because of the changes that are taking place in the industry, the employers are in a better position than the board to know what is likely to be the increased productivity, particularly in view of the new techniques which are being employed.
Both employers and unions wanted these terms: only the Government did not, and it is extraordinary how difficult it is to ascertain the reasons. Is it contended that these moderate increases to 3,000 people would increase the cost of television viewing or of the product of these people's work? Certainly not. The

National Board for Prices and Incomes said:
The increase in minimum rates from 1st July, 1969, would represent from 8·2 per cent. for the lowest paid worker to 3·7 per cent. for the highest paid
on the current minimum rates, and that the increase from 1st July, 1970, would represent rises ranging from 9·1 per cent. to 4·2 per cent. on the same basis.
In equity, how can the Government deny these men these advances? In view of what has happened in other industries, where there are big unions, since the Ministry referred this matter to the Board, do they still maintain the same position, or will they shortly say, "We referred this to the Board before all the other unions got much larger increases, which we have allowed. Now, despite the Board's decision, we must allow increases which we were responsible for turning down."? They should consider this.
The Government referred this to the Board in August, since when there has been much larger increases to many unions. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it is right that the Government should pursue this harsh line with this small union, in view of the very large increases since their reference was made. Is the Minister prepared to say that, no matter what the Board decided in August, the Government accept that the position is changed, and that if these people put in their claim again, it will be allowed to go through?

10.54 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: The historian of industrial relations in this period will find it of singular interest when trying to characterise the policy of this Government on this matter that they pursued a policy for a period which led the hon. Members for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), Gillingham (Mr. Burden), and, probably, after I sit down, Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) to pose as defenders of the rights of trade unions. I hope that he will be a Socialist historian with a sense of humour, because he will need it when he deals with the heart-breaking contributions which we have heard tonight from the new champions of the trade union movement. At least the hon. Member for Basingstoke has a sense of humour—he is laughing—but some of his


hon. Friends are still seriously keeping up a bold front.
Some of the contributions have shown that hon. Members do not know what the Government have or have not done in this House. They have alleged that the Government have held up money payments, which is wholly untrue. They do not know that the unions have since reached a settlement and will be back paid. They have got hold of the information from somewhere that this is an instrument with which they can hit the Government over the head and have rushed in from other parts of the House and decided to set about the Government.
We have had from the hon. Member for Basingstoke a bold statement that this is a typical example of the Government trying to interfere with trade unions, and he bases his assumption on those who say that no Government must interfere with trade unions. I know that the hon. Member did not take part in the Selsdon Park festivities but they were organised by the party to which he belongs, and two days later he turns up here and says how monstrous it is that the Government should interfere with the trade union movement.

Mr. David Mitchell: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a tradition of the House that when an hon. Member refers to another hon. Member and comments on what he says, that Member has a chance to reply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) to decide whether he should give way.

Mr. Mendelson: In a minute I shall, but I want to finish this thought, as I do not want it to be lost to history. Two days after the Selsdon Park meeting, to which right hon. Members of the front Bench opposite and the Chief Whip and one or two others were invited, and of which political correspondents have been writing in the Sunday Express and the Sunday Telegraph that the Tories are determinated to put the trade unions down—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Mendelson: Yes. The hon. Member for Basingstoke turns up here 48 hours later and says that it is monstrous

for the Government to try to interfere with the trade union movement. He has not read the papers.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member says that I turn up here and say that it is monstrous for the Government to interfere with the trade union movement. I did not say that at all. I said it was monstrous that they should interfere with a freely negotiated and entered collective bargain. That is a different matter altogether.

Mr. Mendelson: We will see. The hon Member is more serious. At Selsdon Park decisions were taken to interfere with collective bargaining. The Tories are going to put the clock back and put the trade unions in a straitjacket and introduce legislation which will make it impossible for trade unions to exercise their strength. The Tories will be unhappy and dissatisfied with what I say—I knew they would—but I am sent here not to please the Opposition but to defend the trade union movement against the nefarious plans of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The details of the plans have not yet been indicated to the hon. Members for Basingstoke and Harrow, West. The details are still under lock and key because the Shadow Cabinet is afraid that the hon. Member for Basingstoke may have an aunt in Basingstoke and may tell that aunt and it might get out and reach the British people during the election campaign. It is keeping them under lock and key until—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come back to the Prayer.

Mr. Mendelson: With great respect, you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be a month of Sundays before I dissented from anything you said in the Chair.
Earlier, when the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) was speaking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—when the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) was speaking—

Mr. Burden: Wrong again.

Mr. Mendelson: —he launched an attack, as did the hon. Member for Gillingham, on the Government, who I admit cannot take much comfort from


the remarks made by hon. Members on either side tonight. However, I am entitled to defend the Government against the outrageous hypocrisy and humbug in which hon. Gentlemen opposite have been indulging.

Mr. Burden: Come to the point.

Mr. Mendelson: I will do that immediately. I shall have something extremely relevant to say about the order, which is more than can be said of any of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has been the only back bencher whose comments have had a real bearing on the subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) began the process of nailing the Opposition case and putting the matter in its right perspective. For weeks on end hon. Gentlemen opposite have attacked the unions as being irresponsible because their wage demands have been said to be too high. No hon. Gentleman opposite with an ounce of honesty in him will deny that there has been talk of a wage explosion and that our exports would receive a setback.

Mr. R. Carr: Who said that?

Mr. Mendelson: I am explaining—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting into a general debate on incomes policy. His remarks must relate to the Prayer, which at present they are not doing.

Mr. Mendelson: I do not know whether you were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington spoke on behalf of the Official Opposition. His whole case consisted of contrasting the wage application and negotiations to which the order applies with what he called the other tremendously high settlements that had been passed without Government interference. I suggest, with respect, that if the hon. Gentleman, speaking for the official Opposition, could adduce that case time and again—I recall his making it eleven times—I should be allowed to make a few remarks in reply, at least twice.
I do not intend to allow the hon. Gentlemen opposite to get off the hook

over this matter. [Interruption.] They may not like hearing these things, but it is obvious that what we are discussing exposes the hypocrisy which they have demonstrated in our debates on this and similar orders. Although I have not spoken in each of these debates, I have attended them all. I have seen hon. Gentlemen opposite posing as the champions of the trade union movement by attacking this and similar orders. But these orders are not all the same. As the Minister will, I am sure, point out, this order concerns matters which did not concern the similar instruments that we have discussed.
The trouble has been that by pursuing their recent policy the Government have enabled hon. Gentlemen opposite to indulge in the hypocrisy of which I have spoken, and their policy has also resulted in this and similar orders coming before the House. The Conservatives have been given an opportunity to make it appear that in certain cases where there has been agreement between employers and employees, the Government have somehow stood in the way and should be criticised.

Mr. Keith Speed: The hon. Gentleman has several times used the word "hypocrisy". How would he describe the Prime Minister's comment in March, 1966, that no Government could ever proscribe wages?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting into a much wider debate than the Prayer allows.

Mr. Eldon Gkiffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) referred to it, so little a matter that it is out of order for this House to discuss it? Does the Prime Minister need the protection of the Chair when this House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is concerned only with what is in order in discussing this Prayer.

Mr. Mendelson: This is at the tail end of a period of many months. The Government will have realised by now, as will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, that this policy has not been achieving its purpose. He will give the House the particular details and circumstance of this case, but he knows that it


is now the view of every member of the Parliamentary Labour Party, with perhaps a few exceptions, and of the trade union movement, that the Government must now move away from this whole policy. I take courage from the fact that in the recently published announcement it is shown that the Government are to pursue a different policy in future. This will have the beneficial effect of preventing hon. Members exercising their hypocrisy and sham efforts as they have done tonight.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. John Page: We are all used to discounting the Freudian hysteria of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths), who rose to the surface of the waters of this House tonight like a political coelecanth, was more interesting.
We on this side of the House are consistently interested to be told that the interests of the trade union movement are totally the preserve of hon. Members opposite, and that it is hypocritical and wrong for any Tory to touch this sacred cow, even when its wounds need dressing. This debate is really a collector's piece for those of us who through the long hot summer and long cold winter nights have been debating the absurdities of the ever-changing kaleidoscope of the Government's prices and incomes policy. An hon. Member opposite said to me this evening, not in this House, "This is Custer's last stand." We should bring it up to date and call it Castle's last standstill.
My hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) and Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) demolished any argument that the Government can possibly put up in defence of what they are doing. I will try to add a couple of fringe benefits to the debate. This absurd standstill order refers to an increase of about 8 per cent. this year and 9 per cent. next year at the top limit for 3,000 people and about 4 per cent. at the lower limit. It is absurd because the Parliamentary Secretary, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) on 16th December, gave the average weekly earning increases for the year ended April, 1968, as 8·5 per cent. and for the year ended April. 1969, the latest figures

available at that time, as 7·6 per cent. What a tremendous fuss to make considering that this sensible, worth-while union had come honourably to an agreement with the employers concerned, reaching an agreement virtually within the average during the period of the standstill put on by the right hon. Lady!
There is a particularly cynical note which brings verity to what my hon. Friends have said, that the right hon. Lady just picked on this union to kick in the teeth because it was so small. As the explanatory note on the order says,
This Order, which has effect from 6th December 1969, provides for the further continuation until 7th February 1970 of the standstill.…
What happened on 11 th December? We had the last of a row of productivity, prices and incomes policy White Papers, which described what was to happen after 1969. The Press handout on the White Paper said:
It expresses the hope that the early warning system, which has always operated on a voluntary basis, can continue without the use of reserve powers and that it will not be necessary to embody the delaying powers in the proposed legislation to set up the C.I.M..
Five days before this pious White Paper was produced we had this order forcing a standstill on this small group of work people for no apparent reason. It is for that reason that all of us can say a grateful "Amen" to the final funeral service on the prices and incomes standstill orders.

11.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): The only point in the speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) to which I wish to refer is his suggestion that the Government have struck a cynical note. Throughout the debate I have felt more and more that the only cynical note is the fact of the Opposition having tabled the Prayer when the standstill to which it refers has only four days to run before it expires. It is obvious that their only purpose is to seek to make political mischief.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Christmas Recess of four weeks has intervened, and that for reasons known to both sides the debate was postponed for another week. We are debating the matter and voting


on it on principle, as I explained in my speech.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman made rather a lengthly speech, during which he said some rather outrageous things. I interrupted him only once. I have said that I think that the Opposition's purpose in tabling the Prayer is to make political mischief, and I repeat that.
It has been repeatedly alleged that we are picking on a small union here. But in the trade union world power is not necessarily related to numerical strength. Some of the most powerful unions are among the smallest numerically. Because of the effectiveness of its organisation, the union with which we are concerned is particularly powerful within the sphere in which it operates.
In referring to the question of picking on small unions, the hon. Gentleman said that he and his hon. Friends have tabled Prayers against every order. I do not hold it against him that he is inaccurate here; it is fair for him to have lapses of memory. But there have been orders against which the Opposition have not prayed, such as that extending the standstill on the municipal busmen. I do not think that anyone would suggest that the union involved—the Transport and General Workers Union—was small or weak. No prayer was tabled against the extension of the standstill on the Scottish electrical contractors, where the union involved was the E.T.U., which no one suggests is a small, ineffective and parlous union. So the Opposition not only are rumbled on that point but are seeking to mislead the House.
There are four possible alternatives that the Opposition could adopt to criticise the order. First, it could be their case that the order sprang from and was consistent with the Opposition's general rejection of the Government's statutory prices and incomes policy. Of course, that is no longer an argument but an attitude, because the argument effectively ceased when the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968, from which the order stems, received the Royal Assent.
Secondly, the Opposition could argue that the settlement which is the subject of the order was not inconsistent with the requirements of the policy and therefore should not have had its implementation delayed.
Thirdly, the case could be that, granted that the settlement failed to satisfy the criteria laid down, nevertheless the Government were in error, either in technique or judgment, in making the order extending the standstill.
Finally, the case could be that the order should be annulled because of inequitable treatment of this industry and its employees as contrasted with that allegedly meted out to other industries and other trade unions. All these points have been made in the debate but this latter charge is regularly levelled against the policy, usually in general terms but rarely in particular. Anxious as I am to pursue this hare raised by the Opposition, I am sure that, even if time permitted me to do so, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order.
The order itself followed an adverse report by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. On every previous adverse report, the Government have used the full extent of the available powers where necessary, whereas in this case, for the first time, the full period was not invoked, and to that extent any inequity was favourable to the settlement and its implementation and not against.

Mr. R. Carr: The point of equity is important. The inequity we see is not in the way the Government operate the reports of the board when a reference has been made to the board. The inequity we see is the highly arbitrary manner in which a few cases are referred to the board and others are not. That is the inequity.

Mr. Walker: That allegation has been repeatedly dealt with at Question Time and on other occasions in the House, but, plainly, in order to refute it now I would have to examine every settlement against which the right hon. Gentleman puts a question mark. It is not, therefore, the kind of thing I can deal with in this debate. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, every settlement is scrutinised by my Department separately. Equally, I accept that the way in which some of these settlements are presented in the Press is quite contrary to their detailed contents.
It is to the second and third points of the four possible alternative arguments to which I propose to address myself, because I think it is here that we have the


substance of the Opposition's case. I start by setting out, perhaps in greater detail than the House has heard, the background to the order.
The settlement was reached on 21st July last between the Association of Film Laboratory Employers and the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians. Although only four companies belong to the employers' association, the settlement is followed throughout the industry and therefore affects about 3,000 technical, clerical and general workers employed in 13 firms. The settlement's two stages provided for, from 1st July, 1969, an increase of 22s. 6d. in weekly basic rates, with improvements in shift allowances and holiday arrangements for all staff, and reducing the working week for clerical workers from 37½ hours to 35, altogether adding 6·3 per cent. to the total wage bill.
From 1st July, 1970, a further increase will be made of 25s. in weekly basic rates, adding altogether 5·7 per cent. to the total wage bill. This confirms what has been said opposite. What was not brought out clearly was the fact that the settlement did not modify the existing cost of living sliding scale provision, which between June, 1967 and June, 1969 added over 6 per cent. to average earnings. It was not unreasonable to expect that it would possibly continue at the same rate, and would have to be added to the percentages involved in the settlement. Assuming a continuation of the same trend, the percentage increase works out at about 9 per cent. per annum.
In exchange the settlement provided for the staggering of meal breaks and the elimination of the clerical staff's afternoon tea break, and for continued co-operation in raising efficiency by greater flexibility and better labour utilisation.
The settlement presented two major difficulties for the incomes policy. The first was that, although the parties claimed that it was justified on grounds of productivity, they could not show that it satisfied the guide lines for such settlements. In particular they could not quantify past gains in productivity, nor had they projected future trends or tried to identify contributions which workers could be expected to make towards raising efficiency over the next two years.
Secondly, as A.F.L.E. had been reminded before the settlement was agreed, it was impossible to reconcile the continuance of the cost of living increases with the policy, in particular the policy as contained in Paragraph 43 of the White Paper, Command Paper No. 3950. Repeated efforts were made to secure modification but this proved fruitless and the Government felt that they had little alternative but to refer the settlement to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, with a standstill direction, so that the board could evaluate the work and productivity and bring its independent judgment to bear, and decide whether the productivity elements justified the settlement. This was done on 8th August after the two sides had been seen by my officials and myself to discuss the difficulties and consider the representations. In view of the standstill direction, the board had to report within three months.
Allegations have been made about the speed with which the Department was compelled to act because of the early implementation of the settlement. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) say that the Parliamentary Commissioner, no less, had given the Department a clean bill of health in that respect. The Board's report was published on 6th November and contained an adverse recommendation, saying that as the settlement could not be reconciled with the Government's incomes policy it ought not to be implemented, thus confirming the view which we had taken in making the reference in the first place.

Mr. Speed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker: No. I have a lot to say. The Government ought to be able to state their case fully. I beg the House to accept that there is the obligation to reply fully to the charges that have been made.
The report recommended four steps which the industry ought to take, in its own interests and to bring its pay arrangements into conformity with incomes policy. First, the industry should collate information which directly measures the trends in costs and deals with the contribution to decreased costs made by the workers. Second, the two sides should quickly examine training arrangements with a view to increasing


flexibility and reducing the number of grades. Third, the industry should discontinue the cost of living sliding scale arrangements, and, fourth, satisfactory assurances should be sought from the employers that increases given under the settlement would not lead to higher prices for their customers.
A further meeting was held with the two sides when they were told of the probability that a satisfactory assurance about prices and a firm decision to abandon the cost of living provision would be accepted by Ministers as sufficient to bring the settlement within the policy. I regret to say that neither was forthcoming. In view of this intransigence to the board's recommendation, we were left with no alternative but to extend the standstill. Under the statutory powers then available the maximum period for which it could be imposed was the balance of the 11 months, in this instance until 7th July, 1970. The notice of intent was gazetted accordingly, following the pattern of every previous extension of a standstill. After further meetings with me when the employers and trade union stressed the industry's efficiency, progressive outlook and good relations as acknowledged in the board's report, while they failed to satisfy us on the qualifications required in the report, we decided that nonetheless we ought in all equity to be prepared to reduce the period of standstill from that originally gazetted.
It seemed to us that to apply the maximum extension at this point in time would not be equitable having regard to the steps we were taking to do away with powers to extend the standstill period for the then prevailing length of time. We therefore reduced the period of extension from eight to three months, expiring on 7th February, that is, in four days' time. That decision was promulgated on 6th December, 1969, in the order to which the prayer relates.
I hope that I have made it clear that our case for extending the standstill stemmed primarily from the board's report, a document which I hope will assist the industry in charting its future course. I have sought to avoid quoting from it as copiously as I might, or as selectively as hon. Members opposite have, but there is one point in it to which I ought to refer, because it has been ignored

by hon. Members opposite. It is paragraph 43 which says:
Indeed, since the employers have told us that the implementation of the agreement will make some price increases inevitable, the assumption must be to the contrary.
—that is, that a settlement could be fully met out of increased productivity—
Moreover, as long as the cost of living sliding scale arrangements remain, they are liable to lead to extra payments which cannot be justified under any of the criteria in the White Paper and which will add still further to costs.
I had thought that if there was common ground between the two sides, it was the acceptance of the need to contain costs and thus bring about some degree of price stability. Here was an admission to the board by employers that a settlement would lead to price increases. I would have thought that that was an important point to which hon. Members opposite would wish to draw attention.
One or two specific matters were raised with which I should like to deal. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) complained about interference with settlements. We have never denied that one objective of the policy is to affect settlements, but not to interfere with the process of free collective bargaining. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite jeer at that, but I ask them carefully to study their own policy document, "Fair Deal at Work", which on page 60 clearly declares the intention to transform the N.B.P.I. into a productivity board charged with the task of interfering—the word is "intervening"—with the process of negotiation before a settlement is reached. That is the process which the hon. Member so bitterly opposes.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) repeatedly made the criticism of Government policy that it was weak and ineffectual. In other words, it is not that the policy bears hard on the wage earner but, apparently, that it does not bear on the wage earner with sufficient severity, that it is not sufficiently rigorous.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Walker: That is the only interpretation that can be placed—

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Walker: —on those words. The Opposition have repeatedly shown the


House that they are prepared to will the end, but to deny the Government the means.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—[Interruption.]

Mr. William Price: Get back to the bar, all of you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Question is—[Interruption.]

Mr. Price: Drunken buffoons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Question is—

Mr. Burden: On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must proceed to put the Question. I am bound by Standing Orders to do so.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Burden: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right for an hon. Member sitting on the Front Bench below the Gangway opposite to refer to an hon. Member on this side as a "drunken buffoon"? If he made that remark, which was overheard by many people, I request that you ask him to withdraw such an offensive remark.

Mr. Charles Pannell: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair would deprecate any interruption during the Question being put by the Chair. The Chair did not hear that remark just referred to. I must proceed to take the Tellers.

The House having divided: Ayes 169, Noes 213.

Division No. 59.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Foster, Sir John
Maddan, Martin


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fry, Peter
Maginnis, John E.


Amery, lit. Hn. Julian
Galbraith, Hn. T. G,
Marten, Neil


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus


Astor, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Pater (Torrington)


Balniel, Lord
Grant, Anthony
Mills, Stratum (Belfast, N.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bitten, John
Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector


Biggs-Oavison, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
More, Jasper


Body, Richard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Morrison Charles (Devizes)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Brewis, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Murton, Oscar


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hay, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nott, John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Burden, F. A.
Hill, J. E, B.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Holland, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Carlisle, Mark
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Chataway, Christopher
Hornby, Richard
Peel, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner


Clark, Henry
Hunt, John
Pounder, Rafton


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Francis


Cordle, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crouch, David
Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
Royle, Anthony


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dean, Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lambton, Viscount
Scott, Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Lancaster, Cot. C. G.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Eden, Sir John
Lane, David
Sharpies, Richard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Silvester, Frederick


Emery, Peter
Lubbock, Eric
Sinclair, Sir George


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fisher, Nigel
McNair-Witson, Michael
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Speed, Keith




Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Tapsell, Peter
Vickers, Dame Joan
Woodnutt, Mark


Taylor,Edward M.(C'gow,Cathcart)
Waddington, David
Worskey, Marcus


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walters, Dennis
Wright, Esmond


Temple, John M.
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)
Younger, Hn. George


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Ward, Dame Irene



Thorpe, Ht. Hn. Jeremy
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tilney, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.





NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Freeson, Reginald
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Allen, Scholefield
Gardner, Tony
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Roland


Armstrong, Ernest
Golding, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ashley, Jack
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Murray, Albert


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Neal, Har[...]


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Gregory, Arnold
Ogden, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
O'Mallev, Brian


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oram, Bert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamling, William
Oswald, Thomas


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Binns, John
Harper, Joseph
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Haseldine, Norman
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boston, Terence
Hazell, Bert
Pavitt, Laurence


Boyden, James
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bradley, Tom
Henig, Stanley
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hobden, Dennis
Pentland, Norman


Brooks, Edwin
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Probert, Arthur



Howie, W.
Randall, Harry


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Rees, Merlyn


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Richard, Ivor


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Chapman, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Coe, Denis
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Coleman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Roebuck, Roy


Concannon,J. D.
Lawson, George
Rose, Paul


Conlan, Bernard
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Crawshaw, Richard
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert


Cronin, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Luard, Evan
Silverman, Julius


Dalyell, Tarn
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Slater, Joseph


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
MacColl, James
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Macdonald, A. H.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
McElhone, Frank
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McGuire, Michael
Taverne, Dick


de Frcitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Delargy, Hugh
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Mackie, John
Tomney, Frank


Dempsey, James
Mackintosh, John P.
Tuck, Raphael


Dewar, Donald
Maclennan, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Varley, Eric G.


Dobson, Ray
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Doig, Peter
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunn, James A.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunnett, Jack
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wellbeloved, James


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Eadie, Alex

Whitaker, Ben


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Manuel, Archie
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ellis, John
Mapp, Charles
Whitlock, William


Ennals, David
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marquanl, David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fernyhough, E.
Maxwell, Robert
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Finch, Harold
Mellish, Rt Hn. Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Millan, Bruce
Winnick, David


Foley, Maurice
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Woof, Robert


Ford, Ben
Milne, Edward (Blyth)



Forrester, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fowler, Gerry
Molloy, William
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Moonman, Eric
Mr. Neil McBride.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make further provision with respect to the welfare of chronically sick and disabled persons, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment which is attributable to any provision of that Act imposing a duty on a local authority having functions under section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 to make arrangements in the exercise of their functions under that section if they are satisfied in the case of any person ordinarily resident in the authority's area who is a person to whom that section applies that it is necessary to make those arrangements in order to meet the needs of that person.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS (EAST LINCOLNSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dobson.]

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: I am grateful for this opportunity to challenge the recently announced Government decision to close the East Lincolnshire railway line to passenger traffic. This is a matter of the greatest concern to my constituents.
I last raised this subject, also in an Adjournment debate, on 10th May, 1966. The arguments I then used seem equally or even more valid today. There is also an entirely new argument of great importance to which I shall come a little later.
I wish to make seven specific points, of which I have given the Parliamentary Secretary prior notice, in the short time that is available to me. My constituents will be grateful if the Minister will deal with each of the seven points head-on and with absolute frankness in his reply rather than take refuge, as have some of his predecessors—and I have dealt with a number of them on this issue—in generalities about losses not continuing on anything like their present scale. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning present. He has a constituency interest in this matter and I hope that he will bring to bear his influence in the Cabinet.
My first point is the hardship the closure will cause to many of my constituents. Two inquiries by the independent T.U.C.C. have reported, with a wealth of supporting evidence, that the closure will cause serious and widespread social hardship throughout East Lincolnshire. Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept or reject these reports? I hope that he will give a clear answer to this first question.
The second point relates to the economic implications of closure for the whole area. I have, in my constituency, unusually high seasonal unemployment, running at 7½ per cent. along the coastal strip, including Skegness, at present. There is also an urgent need to attract new light industry to the market towns. We have had some success in this regard


recently, but closure of the railway line will reduce the possibility of further successes in future.
The proposed closure will leave many of my constituents 40 or 50 miles from the nearest railway station. Does the Parliamentary Secretary know of any other area of comparable size and importance within 150 miles of London which will be so entirely bereft of rail transport?
When I raised this matter on the previous occasion on 10th May, 1966, the then Parliamentary Secretary said:
…we are moving away from the concept of considering one railway line towards looking at the needs of a whole area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 365.]
Is this still the policy of the Ministry? If so, how is it reconcilable with this closure decision?
What is the point of some Government Departments talking about building up the regions and spending large sums of money in trying to do so when at the same time another Government Department is destroying an important part of the economic infrastructure of this particular region? Where is the logic and consistency in this?
Thirdly, I would challenge the realism of the figures published by the Ministry for the level of losses the line is making. I do this on a number of counts. The diversion of the profitable Humberside freight traffic to the Market Rasen line was a deliberate decision taken by British Railways which inevitably in-inflated the losses of the East Lincolnshire line. Many of my constituents believe that this was done deliberately to strengthen the case for closure after this had been rejected by two previous Ministers. Whatever the motive, events have proved that it was clearly a mistaken managerial decision which should be reversed.
If there is only enough Humberside freight for one line, the poor state of the track on the Grimsby to Market Rasen line, and the discovery of massive quantities of natural gas close to the East Lincolnshire coast, which the operators wish to move by rail, should lead British Railways to give first priority to the East Lincolnshire line and reverse their previous decision.
Moreover, we were given a categorical assurance at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, speaking on 10th May, 1966, on behalf of the Government in another place, that the losses resulting from the diversion of freight traffic would not subsequently be used to justify the withdrawal of passenger services. It seems that a clear issue of Government faith is involved here, and I hope that the Minister will read what the noble Lord said on that occasion.
There has been a sorry tale of incompetent and unimaginative management by British Railways throughout, because no attempt has been made to run a basic rural railway. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) will confirm, if he gets an opportunity to intervene in the debate, on 2nd June, 1967, Mr. Gerard Fiennes, the then General Manager of the Eastern Region of British Railways, took us both in his private train on a tour of the East Lincolnshire railway line. He then told us that for a capital expenditure of £250,000 it would be possible for British Railways to reduce the annual deficit on the line to about £100,000, and he asked us whether the three Lincolnshire county councils would make a financial contribution towards that £100,000 loss. We said that we were sure they would. We subsequently had certain private communications with the clerks of the three councils which, without definite commitment on their part, sounded promising. But there was no follow-up by British Railways on this, and no action at all, apart from the dismissal of Mr. Gerard Fiennes as General Manager. Why has no attempt been made to produce a basic rural passenger service in East Lincolnshire?
For those reasons, it is absurd for the Parliamentary Secretary now to pretend that the line cannot be run at a loss of less than £700,000 a year, which is what he said in his letter to me the other day. How, if the then General Manager of the Eastern Region was confident that he could run a basic rural railway in East Lincolnshire at a loss of only £100,000 in 1967, has it now come about, only 2½ years later, that the minimum estimated loss should have risen to £700,000? It is unbelievable. This figure of £700,000 is evidently bogus.
Fourth, the Minister is statutorily bound, before agreeing to the withdrawal of passenger services, to ensure that


adequate alternative means of transport exist. In East Lincolnshire they really do not. The roads are narrow and winding, and in summer are choked with traffic and caravans. The bus services are wholly inadequate, and the new additional bus services proposed are really quite laughable. I do not have time to go into details, but anyone living in the Mablethorpe or Alford area wanting to get to London should, the Ministry suggests, take a bus to Louth, change there and take another bus to Market Rasen, and then get on the train to London.
I often have to fly to Teheran in Persia on business, and I have worked out that I shall be able to get to Teheran a good deal quicker than my constituents will be able to get to London. Is this not absurd? Does the Minister realise and accept the truth of what I am saying about the inadequacy of alternative services? One of the things that irritates my constituents above all else is the bogus alternative. They would rather the Minister came clean and was utterly ruthless and said, "We realise that it will cause hardship and that we cannot give you anything else, but we will close it for these reasons." To pretend to my constituents that they are being given an adequate alternative service is adding insult to injury.
Fifthly, is it true that the Market Rasen line is barely capable of safely bearing the existing volume of traffic on it, as is widely believed by railwaymen in the area? How near are we to the margin of safety on the Market Rasen line? Will heavy expenditure upon it be necessary if the East Lincolnshire line is closed? I hope that we shall be told.
The sixth point concerns a new development in the situation of great importance and relevance, namely, the discovery of natural gas off the East Lincolnshire coast. We have been told in the past that this had no bearing on the railway situation, but I have recently discovered that that is not true. The gas terminal is at Theddlethorpe, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer), but only a quarter of a mile away from the end of the Mablethorpe railway line in my constituency.
A major international oil company, which is to be one of the operators for

the Gas Council, has told me that it will shortly wish to move 450 tons of condensate, which is crude petrol, every day from Theddlethorpe to Immingham by rail. It wants to move it by rail from Mablethorpe via Willoughby Junction to Humberside. This will involve three freight trains, each of 30 rail tank trucks of 45 product ton capacity in perpetual use every day. The income to British Rail would be at least £150,000 a year—perhaps significantly more—from this one company.
But this is only a start. This oil company tells me that the capacity of this gas field may soon involve three companies as operators and that over 1,200 tons of crude petrol may have to be moved each day. This would be equivalent to nine freight trains of 30 trucks in perpetual service—a new freight income to British Rail of at least £450,000 a year, or perhaps more.
If the railway closes, this one oil company alone will need at least 25 huge 5,000-gallon road tankers making the daily return trip down these narrow, winding, crowded country lanes between Mablethorpe and Humberside. Later, if all three operators are in the field, there could be 75 or more road tankers needed, each making the return trip daily.
It is absolute sheer insanity to contemplate such a situation with the roads in their present state. All holiday traffic, on which the whole area depends for its livelihood, will be brought to a virtual standstill. The roads will break up, as the county council has already warned the oil company.
If a tanker slips into a ditch or a dyke, as is bound to happen sooner or later, and part of its potentially dangerous crude petrol is spilt on the still waters—they are not flowing—the road will have to be closed for many hours, if not days, while the petrol is pumped away.
Has the Minister really thought out the implications of what he is doing? I feel that he ought to order a thorough investigation into this movement of natural gas which can most suitably go by rail.
Lastly, if, as I understand, British Rail plans to keep the main line open to freight from Willoughby Junction north to Grimsby and from Spalding


south to Peterborough, the only stretches of track which will be taken up, while the Skegness to Boston line remains open to passenger traffic, are the two short stretches between Willoughby and Firsby in my constituency and between Boston and Spalding in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston.
Why not keep all the existing main track, which has to be used for this very profitable and growing freight traffic, and run on it a basic rural passenger railway service to Peterborough via Spalding, as suggested by Mr. Gerard Fiennes when he was General Manager of the Eastern Region? And why not ask the county councils, which the Ministry has not yet done, to make a financial contribution towards the greatly reduced losses of running such a basic rural passenger service?
I hope that the Minister will at least undertake to study this suggestion and report to us later and will answer my seven points.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) on being more successful than I was in the Ballot and for raising this subject. I echo every word he has said. All the arguments have been represented to the Minister, but has he paid sufficient regard to what the Maud Report said? If the Government intend to act on the Report soon, I regret that they have not heeded what it said about the need for good communications between Spalding and Peterborough. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman realises that many people, particularly in the southern half of Holland, will now have a journey of more than two hours at least and sometimes as much as three hours to reach Peterborough. The County of Holland is a chronically low income area and it is out of the question for thousands of families to acquire a car, which means that they will be dependent upon public transport—which will not be available, no matter what he may say about future bus services.
Because of the shortage of time, I can put only one question, but I hope that it is answered. What will the cost be

of keeping open a light diesel unit for a rural train service between Spalding and Peterborough? If the hon. Gentleman does not know, we may be sure that about 35,000 people in the southern half of Holland, who are tragically affected by this decision, will say that he has not made a just decision.

11.57 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Albert Murray): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) for raising this subject, which gives me the opportunity to explain my right hon. Friend's decision to consent to the Railways' Board's revised proposal to withdraw rail passenger services from a number of lines in East Lincolnshire. If I do not pick up all the points mentioned by him and his hon. Friend, I will write to him on the others.
Several hon. Members made strong representations before this decision was taken, and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, who is here tonight, took a close interest in the proposal. I know that he and they were concerned about the effect of this decision on their constituents. I need hardly say that all aspects of the proposal, social and economic, were carefully considered before the final decision.
Hon. Members do not need to be reminded in detail of British Rail's problems over recent years, caused by competition from other forms of transport, or of the Government's plan for a stabilised railway network or of the scheme for the payment of grants for the retention of unremunerative but socially necessary services embodied in the Transport Act, 1968.
In 1962, with the general support of hon. Members opposite, the right hon Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), introduced his Transport Act. This set the newly constituted Railways Board the formidable task of reducing its deficit, without assisting it in anyway with the burden of providing these loss-making services. Consequently, the board decided that it could no longer justify the high cost of continuing to provide rail services in East Lincolnshire except to Boston from the main line through Grantham and from Lincoln. Closure proposals to this end were published in 1963


and 1964 but when the present Government came to look at these proposals, following the receipt of the reports by the Transport Users Consultative Committee, we took the view that they were too far-reaching.

Mr. Tapsell: I do not wish to be discourteous but we all know the history of this, and all my constituents know the history. We would like answers to my questions and not a recapitulation of old history.

Mr. Murray: I do not wish to make the debate acrimonious, but I gave more than half the time to hon. Members opposite and I want to make a number of points. I have given the hon. Member certain assurances that if I do not answer all his points now, I will write to him. It is important that the history of this is seen, rather than just the day-to-day points which the hon. Member has made.
The services concerned were clearly unremunerative, but we could not countenance leaving such an important centre as Skegness without a rail connection. The board was therefore asked to think again.
The proposals were then revised in 1968 to meet our objections, and as a result the proposed withdrawal of services between Boston and Skegness was dropped and a new rail service was proposed from Grantham and Lincoln to Skegness via Boston and Sleaford together with an improved service between Grimsby and London via Newark and the East Coast main line. This was envisaged in the basic network map published in 1967. Detailed improvements were also proposed to the alternative bus services to serve people who would not be served by the new rail services.
The T.U.C.C. made a further report after considering these changes, and my right hon. Friend then had, in effect, to decide the future of the services between Lincoln and Firsby, between Peterborough and Grimsby, and the branch line from this line to Mablethorpe.
The T.U.C. considered that closure would cause widespread hardship because of lengthened journey times and increased fares, although it recognised that there was no justification for keeping

some of the little-used stations. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend found, after a detailed examination, that most of the journeys made were of an occasional nature and, clearly, the impact of hardship would not be as great as if these were regular daily journeys. Moreover he was satisfied that other public transport services, supplemented where necessary to fill gaps in the existing pattern, would provide acceptable alternatives for all but a relatively few journeys.
To have kept all these services would have cost £700,000 in grant-aid every year, after allowing for the very substantial cost of keeping the services to Skegness. This figure reflects the low level of usage in relation to the very considerable route mileage involved.
On the Lincoln-Firsby line, most of the local travel is confined to the first 20 miles from Lincoln, and bus services, strengthened for workers' journeys, will adequately meet this need, although on some journeys people will have to change buses. Each of the other stations on the line had, on average, fewer than five people using it in a day. The rest of the travel is mainly between Lincoln and Skegness, and there is no point in keeping the line for this purpose when there is the other route from Lincoln to Skegness via Sleaford and Boston which, together with the Grantham link, will serve other needs at the same time. The route from Grantham also carries the summer Saturday holiday trains to Skegness from the Midlands.
The possible freight requirement north of Mablethorpe in connection with the natural gas terminal does not materially affect the position.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Murray: I will say why not. If the Railways Board finds it profitable to accept this traffic—and we do not know that it will—the quantities so far mentioned have been of the order of one train load a day. Lines carrying infrequent freight services are maintained to very much lower standards than lines carrying passenger services. The difference in cost is so great that the presence of a freight service would not significantly affect the track and signalling costs allocated to a passenger service.
I come to the question of the Peterborough-Grimsby line, in which my right


hon. Friend obviously has a considerable interest.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not correct to say that his right hon. Friend has that great an interest, for the Minister will be able to get straight to his constituency via Newark. We, on the other hand, face problems between Lincoln and Grimsby. The right hon. Gentleman's interest does not compare with ours in this context.

Mr. Murray: My right hon. Friend has shown a great deal of interest in this matter. The mere fact that he is in his place tonight, at this late hour, listening to an Adjournment debate on the subject is proof of his interest.
I was about to say that in respect of the Peterborough-Grimsby line the section between Boston and just south of Firsby Station is to be kept for the Skegness service. To have retained the service over the whole length would have involved something like £½ million every year in grant aid, and I do not think that it can be argued that such a large sum of the taxpayers' money would be justified at this time if other satisfactory transport arrangements can be made.
One-fifth of the total travel on the line throughout the year is by people travelling all the way between Grimsby and London. They travel mainly by the two through trains a day each way and also by changing at Peterborough to the main line London train. One of the main points which influenced the decision on this service was that the Railways Board has undertaken to introduce an improved service between Grimsby and London via Market Rasen and Newark. In particular, it will continue by way of Newark the through train facility to and from London.
This improved service can be provided at no additional cost to the taxpayer. Thus, the cost of retaining the Peterborough-Grimsby service would have been, in effect, for the benefit of the remaining travellers. About one-fifth of these are regular daily travellers who, in the main, travel to the next station or the station beyond. Buses will serve all but a very few, and we have specified additional bus journeys where necessary.

Journeys will, as has been pointed out, take longer, but not so long that the need for a train service could be considered over-riding.
On the Grimsby-Firsby section of line, Louth and Alford are the only stations apart from Grimsby which originate travel of any consequence to the South beyond Firsby, and this is mainly to London. But the numbers making such journeys are more appropriate to a bus than a train. An alternative can be provided by bus to Market Rasen to connect with the through trains that will run to and from London via Newark. This we have also specified.
South of Firsby, much of the travel is between Boston and Skegness and from Skegness, Boston and Spalding to London. With the exception of Spalding, these travellers will be served by the retained rail service. Bus services between Spalding and Peterborough will be improved and they will stop at the station approach there.
Because the T.U.C.C. took the view that hardship would be caused by the additional journey time and cost of the diversion via Grantham for people using the service from Skegness via Boston, and because the bus service is a less convenient alternative, my right hon. Friend paid special attention to the possibility of retaining a basic rail service between Boston and Peterborough via Spalding. But after careful consideraion he concluded that the £150,000 needed annually in grant-aid terms for such a service could not be justified, bearing in mind the very few known regular daily travellers between the two towns of Boston and Peterborough. Moreover, the occasional journeys on this section of line are, as I have said, usually made as part of longer journeys; and for those passengers the additional time involved in going via Grantham would not be an unreasonable proportion of the whole journey time.
On some of the other points I shall contact those hon. Members who raised them. As hon. Members will know, my right hon. Friend has no power to revoke the consent which he has now given to these closure proposals. He has, however, power to vary the conditions attaching to that consent. The conditions that have been attached all relate to bus services. As a first step, an application for licensing these services has to be considered by


the independent Traffic Commissioners, to whom local authorities and others will have the opportunity to state their views and to make representations. It will be for the Traffic Commissioners to decide whether they are prepared to license the bus services specified by my right hon. Friend. If they disagree—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.